Define "chase." Does that mean Martin is running in fear and Zimmerman is running after him? That would have to be proven. "Following" does not mean the same thing as "chasing" someone. Following is not an act of aggression, especially in his role as Neighborhood Watch. Again, there are reports that he lost sight of Martin and was returning to his vehicle when the altercation happened. If so, he was not "chasing" him.
If Zimmerman was chasing him and that can be proven and the court rules that is considered a hostile action where he forfeits his right to self-defense, then he may be guilty. But you have to be able to prove it. The burden of proof is on the State, not Zimmerman.
I thought Martin started running during the 911 call? and when the operator stated "we don't need you to do that" because Zimmerman was following a running person = chasing according to my logic. Unless you name is Jason Voorhees and can WALK faster than a scared young black kid can run. <-( I know that was racial)
role as Neighborhood Watch = Watching and Reporting role as Neighborhood Watch != Chasing/Following with a Gun
All of this could have been adverted if Zimmerman had actually done his job and NOT gone overboard with what he though was the right thing to do.
F88... "Why do you say "adopted the mantle?" According to the Home Owner's Assoc. where he lived, he was elected Neighborhood Watch Captain by the HOA. "
I would assume that he put himself forward for the position, rather than they selected him at random? and I believe I read here somewhere that there were no other volunteers, and so, by accepting that position he 'adopted the mantle'. Nick
Ok, I see what you mean. It was my understanding that he was elected, but as you said he would have had to offer his services first.
I thought Martin started running during the 911 call? and when the operator stated "we don't need you to do that" because Zimmerman was following a running person = chasing according to my logic. Unless you name is Jason Voorhees and can WALK faster than a scared young black kid can run. <-( I know that was racial)
I've not seen anything to suggest anyone was moving faster than a walking pace at any time. If he was running, that could change things.
quote
Originally posted by nosrac: role as Neighborhood Watch = Watching and Reporting role as Neighborhood Watch != Chasing/Following with a Gun
So how "following with a gun" is the same as "chasing?" How about "Watching and Reporting with a Gun"?
Someone with a concealed carry permit is legally allowed to carry a firearm concealed on their person in public at any time. If the HOA rules said he shouldn't be armed, that's an HOA rule and does not have the force of Law.
quote
Originally posted by nosrac: All of this could have been adverted if Zimmerman had actually done his job and NOT gone overboard with what he though was the right thing to do.
Possibly, but irrelevant. If he had never left his home, this never would have happened. Lots of "what ifs" and again the State has to show proof he went "overboard" and exactly how that broke the law.
.............. and can WALK faster than a scared young black kid can run. .....
.
Just as an observation.. I don't think scared, OR 'running away' (because he was scared, as this seems to imply ) is at all likely, because if he was scared, well...he would have kept on running..unless cornered...so you see, this shows again how we can't make definitive statements because we have no established definition to work with
Originally posted by nosrac: I just don't get how you can admit killing an unarmed person not in the commision of a crime on the street and don't get in BIG trouble.
In spite of Martin having a past. In spite of Martin having his hood up (it was cold and rainy, Zimmerman even said it was" F%#^&*g cold"); in spite of Zimmerman who was apparently "legally"protecting himself (after he inserted himself into a situation he could have avoided); I keep coming back to the same conclusion as you stated above(except for the part about "BIG trouble"). The facts are clear that up to the point that Martin was apparently beating Zimmerman's head against concrete(which may have been my thought if I thought somebody was stalking me), I just don't see where a kid (no matter how big, mean, etc) who was obviously not committing a felony should end up "legally" dead. To address the "BIG trouble," part, I think Zimmerman should let 12 of his peers decide that. I'll go ahead and throw this out there; I think Zimmerman will get quite a bit of legal help through the NRA-this is also their dog in the fight.
Do you apply this logic to yourself or are they only meant for us because" we just don't get it"?
Either that or you have access to the actual evidence and police reports while we can only rely on the media for our info.
I don't say "THIS IS HOW IT HAPPENED". All I am doing is saying that Nick (And I think he is able to stand for himself) doesn't know what happened as much as I don't know, or you don't know.
I also have failed to call Martin anything other than his name, unless I said that I was speculating. YOU however have no problem saying things happened that you have no proof of, and maintain that Zimmerman is a "racist".
The special prosecutor has announced she will make a decision in the next 72 hours. If she decides to charge him, it will be interesting to see if he turns himself in, especially after he has allegedly fled the state and it's jurisdiction.
Originally posted by nosrac: Really simple huh, Why don't you just do that and see if it lands you in the pokey or if you get to walk free. Try this, go to the "hood" and be sure to take a gun. I'm sure there are plenty of suspicious people, up to no good. Pick the one that has a criminal past and start yelling racial slurs and provoke him into assulting you. when he starts to royally spankin that azz, only then shoot and kill him and then claim self defence as you obviously feared for your life from this criminal.
Why would I do that? Because I am white and therefore a racist by your standards?
Seriously, wtf man.
quote
Why are you sooo sure that Zimmerman didn't do anything to provoke or start the altercation? Everything he said is the Truth the whole truth and nuthin but the truth, right? Do you assume, "Without NO provocation, Martin just cheap shot Mr Z and then started pounding his head into the pavement?" The one who STARTS the altercation is the assulting party, NOT the one who's getting the smackdown.
I have never said I was sure Zimmerman was innocent.. All I said was that people seem to be convinced that Zimmerman is a racist, and "murdered" Martin with ZERO PROOF, and we ALL need to step back and look at the FACTS, not things you make up but FACTS.
quote
Ever heard of battered woman syndrome ? Even they get arrested and have a trial?
Well, I think we can safely assume Zimmerman is not a battered woman.
quote
I'll STFU if you STFU, as I see it. "all you are doing is muddying the water, and creating confusion. I'm not sure if it's on purpose, but it's certainly working. "
Did you even read what I wrote, or just go into flippin attack mode? I said people should stop posting other cases, as it muddies the waters here to keep talking about other cases when the thread is about one. I also remember a time (many pages ago) where you flipped because people were not saying things were opinion when they posted.
My opinion? You are drunk.
I never said anyone should STFU, that would be very unlike me.
The special prosecutor has announced she will make a decision in the next 72 hours. If she decides to charge him, it will be interesting to see if he turns himself in, especially after he has allegedly fled the state and it's jurisdiction.
And if she doesn't charge him, it will be interesting to see what the protesters do. I'm thinking she will likely charge him even if she knows there isn't enough evidence for a conviction, just to get it to go to trial and have a verdict rendered. The law shouldn't work that way, but in this case it may be the only way to placate the mobs. (gotta love how the decision to arrest someone may be based in part on public opinion and not evidence of a crime)
Originally posted by twofatguys: Why would I do that? Because I am white and therefore a racist by your standards?
Seriously, wtf man.
I have NO racist standards....You define your own. To prove a point! 1) Killing someone is NOT simple as you stated 2) To show it is pretty easy to provoke someone into kicking your AZZ 3) To see if you will get arrested or walk claiming self defence
quote
I have never said I was sure Zimmerman was innocent.. All I said was that people seem to be convinced that Zimmerman is a racist, and "murdered" Martin with ZERO PROOF, and we ALL need to step back and look at the FACTS, not things you make up but FACTS.
quote
Originally posted by nosrac:
For the record I doubt very serously if mr Z is anything close to racist. That is all media hype baiting the mob so people would tune in. Hell he's not even White, but that makes the story more juicy.
quote
Originally posted by nosrac: I Agree, I don't THINK Mr. Z a racist but he did in FACT assume TM was up to no good just because he was black, and wearing a hoodie, and that my friend is wrong. Unless, you can show where he called the police on non black males looking suspicious.
quote
Did you even read what I wrote, or just go into flippin attack mode? I said people should stop posting other cases, as it muddies the waters here to keep talking about other cases when the thread is about one. I also remember a time (many pages ago) where you flipped because people were not saying things were opinion when they posted.
I read that but missed the "other cases" Really, I flipped? If you think that is flipping ...You really wouldn't like me when I'm angry....
quote
My opinion? You are drunk.
I never said anyone should STFU, that would be very unlike me.
Brad
Drunk? Nope just more sarcartic than usual I know YOU didn't say it as I said "IF you STFU then I will STFU concerning mudding the waters and posting opinions
In every instance, in every state that has "Stand your ground", "Castle Law", or whatever the statute is called, violent crime, home invasions, car-jackings and murders have been reduced significantly since the implementation of said laws. States that allow concealed carrry also have experienced drastic reductions in these types of crimes.
States with "strict" gun control laws (California, New York, and Illinois) have none of these freedoms extented to thier responsible citizens, and have seen increases in violent crimes during the same period.
No matter what the circumstances surrounding the "MEDIA CIRCUS" that this case has turned into, it would truely be a shame if this event was used by politicians to undo the greater good that these laws have brought about.
And if she doesn't charge him, it will be interesting to see what the protesters do. I'm thinking she will likely charge him even if she knows there isn't enough evidence for a conviction, just to get it to go to trial and have a verdict rendered. The law shouldn't work that way, but in this case it may be the only way to placate the mobs. (gotta love how the decision to arrest someone may be based in part on public opinion and not evidence of a crime)
That would be a travesty indeed. I for one don’t want to live in a society where an angry ignorant mob rules.
Most people do not realize that that is exactly what true democracy means.
Originally posted by nosrac: 1) Killing someone is NOT simple as you stated 2) To show it is pretty easy to provoke someone into kicking your AZZ 3) To see if you will get arrested or walk claiming self defence
Are you serious?
Let me make sure I have this right. In order to show you that "stuff happens" and sometimes people kill other people to defend themselves, I have to kill someone, and not just in any old way, I have to go into the Hood, become racist, and provoke a fight? Then the outcome of THAT will totally seal your opinion.
What the hell is wrong with you? If you don't see what is wrong with what you are telling me to do, I'd rather discuss this with Madcurl (who hasn't got that address yet.)
Brad
[This message has been edited by twofatguys (edited 04-11-2012).]
For Brad "homicide, murder, manslaughter - The general term for the killing of a person by another is homicide; murder is either the intentional killing or the malicious killing of another, while manslaughter is the unintentional, accidental killing of another through carelessness."
Did Zimmerman kill Martin intentionally or accidentally?
Also, according to Bing.
stalking Definition stalk·ing[ stáwking ]NOUN 1. stealthy pursuit: the act or process of stealthily following or trying to approach somebody or something 2. act of steady harassment: the crime of harassing somebody with persistent, inappropriate, and unwanted attention
What did Zimmerman do when he saw Martin in the neighborhood? Did he just watch him or did he follow him and try to approach him?
George Zimmerman to be charged in Trayvon Martin shooting, official says
By Sari Horwitz, Wednesday, April 11, 1:56 PM
Florida special prosecutor Angela Corey plans to announce as early as Wednesday 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.
It was not immediately clear what charge Zimmerman will face.
Martin, 17 and unarmed, was shot and killed Feb. 26 by Zimmerman, who said he was acting in self-defense. Police in Sanford, Fla., where the shooting took place, did not charge Zimmerman, citing the state’s “stand your ground” law.
Corey told reporters Tuesday night that she would hold a news conference about the case within 72 hours. A news release from her office said the event will be held in Sanford or Jacksonville, Fla.
Benjamin Crump, who is representing the Martin family, said this week that Corey’s office had asked where Trayvon’s parents would be each day this week. They arrived Wednesday in Washington for a civil rights conference organized by the Rev. Al Sharpton, where they are scheduled to speak.
The announcement of a charge against Zimmerman would come a day after Zimmerman’s attorneys withdrew from the case, citing their inability to contact Zimmerman.
Lawyers Craig Sonner and Hal Uhrig on Tuesday expressed concern about Zimmerman’s emotional and physical well-being, saying he has taken actions without consulting them. They also said they do not know where Zimmerman is.
“You can stop looking in Florida,” Uhrig told reporters. “Look much further away than that.”
Corey said Monday that she would not bring the case before a grand jury, which was expected to convene this week. She said her decision to forgo the grand jury should not be viewed as a factor in determining whether charges will be filed.
Corey has indicated in recent weeks that she might not need a grand jury to bring charges against Zimmerman.
The lawyers said they stand by their assertions that Zimmerman acted in self-defense when he killed the 17-year-old, who was unarmed, but they acknowledged that they formed their impressions without meeting Zimmerman.
[This message has been edited by Bullet (edited 04-11-2012).]
If that is indeed where the prosecution stands on this, my money's on a charge of "voluntary manslaughter", certainly not murder as some have called for. This was never a murder case IMO and referring to it as such only stirred up emotional responses.
The following are some examples of defenses which may be raised to mitigate murder to voluntary manslaughter:
*Provocation: A killing which occurs after provocation by an event which would cause a reasonable person to lose self-control. There must not be a cooling off period negating provocation. If there is an interval between the provocation and killing sufficient to allow the passion of a reasonable person to cool, the homicide is not manslaughter, but murder. *Imperfect self-defense: Allowed only in a limited number of jurisdictions in the United States, self-defense is a complete defense to "murder." (as an aside, I don't agree with the wording of that sentence but I get the point.) However, a person who acted in self defense with an honest but unreasonable belief that deadly force was necessary to do so could still be convicted of voluntary manslaughter or deliberate homicide committed without criminal malice. Malice is found if a person killed intentionally and without legal excuse or mitigation. *Diminished capacity is a defense which serves to negate the mental state of "malice". If a jurisdiction recognizes that a person can kill without justification, but also without any evil intent, for example due to a mental defect or mental illness, that jurisdiction is free to define the crime as something less than murder. This partial defense is only available in some US jurisdictions and not others; whereas the complete defense of insanity is available throughout the US, but rarely used because it is more difficult to show.
Even under Florida law and TOTALLY incumbent upon facts in the case we as yet know nothing about or from the State's POV, the incident could theoretically fulfill the criteria for a "vol man" case.
We shall soon see what if anything is forthcoming, I guess.
[This message has been edited by Doni Hagan (edited 04-11-2012).]
The nature of the charges wasn't immediately known, the official told NBC News Justice Department correspondent Pete Williams, speaking on condition of anonymity. But because Angela Corey — the special prosecutor appointed by Florida Gov. Rick Scott to re-examine the case — previously announced that she wouldn't take the case to a grand jury, first-degree murder is not an option.
"What does second-degree murder mean? The most serious of the two charges, second-degree murder, carries a maximum sentence of life in prison. Second-degree murder is defined as unlawful killing by an act imminently dangerous to another and demonstrating a depraved mind without regard for human life, former defense attorney Jeff Deen said."
[This message has been edited by avengador1 (edited 04-11-2012).]
"What does second-degree murder mean? The most serious of the two charges, second-degree murder, carries a maximum sentence of life in prison. Second-degree murder is defined as unlawful killing by an act imminently dangerous to another and demonstrating a depraved mind without regard for human life, former defense attorney Jeff Deen said."
I always forget whether the higher the degree, the worse, or the less worse.
Never the less, I don't think it was "murder" per-se, but I do think there's just cause to potentially bring to trial him maybe being overzealous in his defense against Trayvon. But, maybe the prosecutor knows something I don't. I WOULD be VERY upset if deep down, this was being done if for no other reason than to calm what is perceived as a racial tension / uprising. That would just be totally ridiuclous. I put my faith in the system though, and I hope that this is all in earnest, and not just to pacify people.
I put my faith in the system though, and I hope that this is all in earnest, and not just to pacify people.
Todd
That's all we can do. The "system" has ALL of the evidence.
quote
I always forget whether the higher the degree, the worse, or the less worse.
2nd degree murder is not as bad as 1st degree. It looks like avengador's article quote was chopped. Where it says "The most serious of the two charges" It is comparing 2nd degree to Manslaughter. Not 2nd degree to 1st degree.
I always forget whether the higher the degree, the worse, or the less worse.
Never the less, I don't think it was "murder" per-se, but I do think there's just cause to potentially bring to trial him maybe being overzealous in his defense against Trayvon. But, maybe the prosecutor knows something I don't. I WOULD be VERY upset if deep down, this was being done if for no other reason than to calm what is perceived as a racial tension / uprising. That would just be totally ridiuclous. I put my faith in the system though, and I hope that this is all in earnest, and not just to pacify people.
Todd
1st degree murder is worse. That basically says you set out with the intent to find the person and kill them.
I don't know the evidence, but I would think a 2nd degree conviction would be hard unless there's an eyewitness account to support it. I could see it being preferred over a manslaughter charge because of the public outcry. I doubt the "Justice for The Blessed Trayvon™" crowd would be satisfied with only manslaughter. I'm certain the public outcry and scrutiny from the Obama Administration, Dept. of Justice, and U.N. played a part in the decision. In any instance where the prosecutor had any judgment calls to make, she would by necessity take the hardest line possible.
The news here is saying that they could still convene a grand jury at a later date and charge him with first degree murder, if new evidence appears. They also say that he will more than likely plea bargain to a lesser charge, as is done in 99% of the cases tried here.
In any instance where the prosecutor had any judgment calls to make, she would by necessity take the hardest line possible.
Ok, well... this makes me feel a little bit better. I didn't consider that.
So it starts off with the highest charge they THINK they can get (that's her job), and then if he's found to not have any malicious intent, it would probably be knocked down to manslaughter or something I guess... that makes sense.
"What does second-degree murder mean? The most serious of the two charges, second-degree murder, carries a maximum sentence of life in prison. Second-degree murder is defined as unlawful killing by an act imminently dangerous to another and demonstrating a depraved mind without regard for human life, former defense attorney Jeff Deen said."
Using the facts that are in the public at this point, if he's convicted i will have lost what little faith i had left in "the system" and our country is doomed.
Originally posted by Formula88: ... I don't know the evidence, but I would think a 2nd degree conviction would be hard unless there's an eyewitness account to support it. I could see it being preferred over a manslaughter charge because of the public outcry. I doubt the "Justice for The Blessed Trayvon™" crowd would be satisfied with only manslaughter. I'm certain the public outcry and scrutiny from the Obama Administration, Dept. of Justice, and U.N. played a part in the decision. In any instance where the prosecutor had any judgment calls to make, she would by necessity take the hardest line possible.
Unless I'm mistaken, the jury usually has the opportunity to find the defendant guilty of a lesser charge -- i.e., manslaughter, or aggravated assault, or whatever it may be called in Florida. Or not guilty, altogether.
The news here is saying that they could still convene a grand jury at a later date and charge him with first degree murder, if new evidence appears. They also say that he will more than likely plea bargain to a lesser charge, as is done in 99% of the cases tried here.
Or if the race card is pulled out again and they are 'blackmailed' into doing it.
I know many people do out of fear and desperation from knowledge they are getting railroaded, but if i was innocent i personally would not plea bargain. I would fight to the bitter end, even if i lost.
Unless I'm mistaken, the jury usually has the opportunity to find the defendant guilty of a lesser charge -- i.e., manslaughter, or aggravated assault, or whatever it may be called in Florida. Or not guilty, altogether.
I always thought with a jury it was either guilty of the charge or not guilty and not somewhere in between.. ? If there are multiple charges in a case, of course some could stick and some not.. but its still a yes/no question. With a judge it could be 'in between'...
Well, it looks like Florida will have another nationally televised murder trial. I wonder if it will play badly for Zimmerman that Casey Anthony was not found guilty? Nancy Grace (I can't stand to listen to her) will have enough material for months.
Unless I'm mistaken, the jury usually has the opportunity to find the defendant guilty of a lesser charge -- i.e., manslaughter, or aggravated assault, or whatever it may be called in Florida. Or not guilty, altogether.
When I was on a jury we were given the charge and only decided guilty or not guilty. No option for lesser charge - that has to happen with the prosecution.
When I was on a jury we were given the charge and only decided guilty or not guilty. No option for lesser charge - that has to happen with the prosecution.
I have always wanted to be on jury duty simply because I want to really learn more about how the whole system works. The only thing I know about it is from what I've learned in school, discussions like this, television, and going to traffic court to help testify against people who have hit other people, or hit me and then tried to flee.
Never been on an actual "trial" as a jury member (or otherwise for that matter).
Not that I relish the idea of being a deciding factor to put someone away, but I am very interested in participating in a very fundamental concept of law that we have, for the most part, pretty much perfected and that everyone else has copied... but that's just because America is awesome... so I don't blame them.
.....in a very fundamental concept of law that we have, for the most part, pretty much perfected and that everyone else has copied... but that's just because America is awesome... so I don't blame them.
I was under the impression that the American law system was largely based on the British system of common law and theirs was "copied" as you say.
I dont mind him being arrested, at least now at least hes supposed to get a fair trial instead of a lynch mob.
When they interviewed the mom after the announcement, what business did Sharpton have being on stage with her except to promote himself. Someone should shoot him...he HAS to get his face and 2 cents worth in everything he can.
Using the facts that are in the public at this point, if he's convicted i will have lost what little faith i had left in "the system" and our country is doomed.
I agree, though I don't think the country will be doomed.
Unless they have something new we don't know about I think it is more something like Formula88's post below.
quote
Originally posted by Formula88:
And if she doesn't charge him, it will be interesting to see what the protesters do. I'm thinking she will likely charge him even if she knows there isn't enough evidence for a conviction, just to get it to go to trial and have a verdict rendered. The law shouldn't work that way, but in this case it may be the only way to placate the mobs. (gotta love how the decision to arrest someone may be based in part on public opinion and not evidence of a crime)
I don't think scared, OR 'running away' (because he was scared, as this seems to imply 
Well, I think we can safely assume Zimmerman is not a battered woman. 
Did you even read what I wrote, or just go into flippin attack mode? I said people should stop posting other cases, as it muddies the waters here to keep talking about other cases when the thread is about one. I also remember a time (many pages ago) where you flipped because people were not saying things were opinion when they posted. 
wouldn't like me when I'm angry....
