The Official Zimmerman Trial Verdict Thread

What are your Initial Thoughts on the Guilt or Innocence of George Zimmerman?


  • Total voters
    84
Status
Not open for further replies.
Please note: The fact that self defense creates reasonable doubt for all lesser charges is being completely ignored by those who want to see him charged with lesser charges.

That's if the jury ultimately feels that way.

How does introducing new charges when the trial is over jive with GZ's right to a trial for all charges brought against him?

I don't know, but I know I have seen similar things like that before. Like someone getting charged for murder and convicted on a lesser charge, it may work like we saw it work today.......
 
Seriously? That's your argument. You aren't familiar with the criminal justice system are you?

Police charge you with every crime you could have possibly committed. That way there is more leverage for negotiations and if that fails, there is more of a chance the jury could find them guilty of something.

If you're talking about a list, yea, they'll include jaywalking too. I was talking about the main indictment, and of course, a murder charge can later be bargained down to only stalking if they ultimately can't prove the murder. I doubt anyone is convicted of just murder AND stalking. When you're convicted of murder, why would they bother with including a stalking conviction?

"A person who intentionally and repeatedly follows or harasses another person and who makes a credible threat, either expressed or implied, with the intent to place that person in reasonable fear of death or serious bodily harm is guilty of the crime of stalking. A person may be charged with aggravated stalking if they commit the crime of stalking while subject to a temporary restraining order, injunction against trespass, or similar order."
Stalking Law & Legal Definition

Ah, they wouldn't "bother" with a stalking charge because what took place that night in Sanford had NOTHING to do with the crime of stalking...something you'd know if you actually knew something about the law.

I'm curious, Quick...what IS your area of "expertise"? I've yet to see something you weren't incredibly ignorant about.

See my previous few replies (#3895 and #3884).
 
Last edited:
Say you are walking home from buying a bag of Skittles and someone starts following you so you run off. Say you think you got away and suddenly, you hear "You punks always get away" so you turn around. Then they shoot you in the chest and you die. Guess you didn't get the chance to defend yourself.

This isn't even part of the OP question, as it lacks any defense. It also is a typical LOLberal feirytale regarding a real incident currently at trial.

RDerp strikes again.

It's rdean... he's a moron... he can barely follow his own threads.
 
Assumptions are act of force. Remember that everyone. You are guilty for making assumptions.

You see you can't fellow a member of the "protected group" as that is a hate crime in shit. You see? So they can break into homes and jump people. This is why I say the left wants this shit to happen as they defend it.
 
Last edited:
-- words of Andrew Branca found at Getting to Murder 2: Finding George Zimmerman?s ?Depraved Mind?

Then look at "manslaughter." Law of Self Defense ? FL 782.07 Manslaughter

"Culpable negligence." That's the key element of "manslaughter."

It's a really BIG problem for the prosecution because if the jury agrees that the intentional acts of pulling out the gun and firing it at the person (TM) was "justified," then it is NOT "negligence" of any stripe or flavor.

Judge Nelson whittled down manslaughter even further this morning. An instruction for voluntary manslaughter (by act) will be given, but not for involuntary (culpable negligence). I'm aware you know the distinction; I just put the proceeding in parentheses to clarify for others.

Thanks. I was sitting in court all morning with my thumb up my ass [proverbially speaking, that is, :D ] and had missed that decision by the judge.

FL. Statute 782.07 (in every subdivision) uses the term "culpable negligence." But it LOOKS like under subdivision 1, an "act" need not be a negligent act.

So, since GZ admitted the act of shooting the gun (intentionally) at TM, but said it was "justified" under the circumstances, IF the jury accepts that he DID the deed but rejects the claim of justification, they COULD find him guilty of the lesser crime.

However, if they say he's not guilty of murder because the shooting was justified, that determination of "justification" should logically and legally apply to the manslaughter as well. If justified at all, then it should be a COMPLETE defense.

A smart jury will quickly acquit.

These are 6 people who couldn't get out of jury duty.
 
"So far the state has not yet referenced any evidence that #Zimmermanon9 started the confrontation."
- good point made by Kathi Belchitch on WFTV blog
 
If Zimmerman is acquitted on both charges and walks out of the courtroom free, I think the rioting will depend on Martin's mother and how she handles the press conference afterwards.
 
I think the strategy is if you say it LOUD and use some cuss words it must sound like "depraved mind" and murder.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Forum List

Back
Top