OT: Zimmerman Not Guilty

[Ibangedlolojones]

From what I read and heard on the news, they didn't make a case for manslaughter. They made a case for murder. It wasn't until the closing arguments that they mentioned manslaughter and that is when the defense lawyers freaked out because it wasn't brought up until the very end and I guess up to that point they were only building a case against murder, not the lesser charges.

So What the Jury was aware that they could accept the lesser offense and were instructed on the parameters of manslaughter.....You think they didn't focus on that charge as well ? I am certain they had to deliberate it as well....

 

[geneh_33]

Anyone? Shockingly, folks aren't falling over themselves to answer this fairly simple question.

This is just another "What if" question. They pop up all the time.

The truth is what we are dealing with here, not a possible scenario. There are at least 100 possible scenarios but I couldn't care less about them because that isn't what happened.

It's like asking, What if Germany had won World War 2?

 

[geneh_33]

How do you know he wasn't backing off while he was shot .....The shot could have been anywhere up to a foot and a half away and the trajectory is consistent with that..... All you are going by is the word of the shooter and he was looking down 30 years in prison ....just maybe he had reasons to not divulge that fact ?

What evidence to you have to the contrary? Answer: ZERO. The ballistics experts and the crime scene experts interpreted the evidence this way, with Trayvon on top and the shot coming while Trayvon was still on top.

 

[Ibangedlolojones]

What evidence to you have to the contrary? Answer: ZERO. The ballistics experts and the crime scene experts interpreted the evidence this way, with Trayvon on top and the shot coming while Trayvon was still on top.

On the stand the defenses expert admitted that the trajectory was also consistent with someone backing off at the time of the shooting ..... He could not dispute that theory.

 

[geneh_33]

Well that doesn't really work. If he was trying to get the gun immediately, it seems unlikely he could have been in reasonable fear for his life at that point. Conversely, if Martin was also reaching for the gun, then they'd each have one hand for fighting.

No, it does work. Zimmerman is trying to get to a gun that he has concealed and Trayvon doesn't yet know it exists until he has reason to suspect he does see it. Hence, the blood on the back of Zimmerman's head.

Just face it, Trayvon supporters lost this case because of the evidence, not in spite of it.

 

[NinerSickness]

I posed this question to Crimson, but I'd be curious to see how others might answer:

1. No injuries to the deceased except to knuckles (and bullet wound of course).
2. Injuries to shooter include broken nose, head & face lacerations.
3. Eyewitness saw them wrestling with deceased on top of shooter.

Is this enough evidence to show self defense in your opinion? If not, what evidence is missing that would have proven self defense (assuming that was actually the case).

 

[geneh_33]

I don't know that I've ever seen a professional football game in which a 158 pound man did much of anything on defense. There are a handful of offensive skill players below the 170s, but Brandon Banks is the only guy I can think of in the 150s. I can't think of any defenders who are below 170.

Who said anything about professional football? I never played pro ball!

You've never seen a high school or college game? C'mon, man, you know exactly what I mean and exactly what I was talking about.

 

[Ibangedlolojones]

No, it does work. Zimmerman is trying to get to a gun that he has concealed and Trayvon doesn't yet know it exists until he has reason to suspect he does see it. Hence, the blood on the back of Zimmerman's head.

Just face it, Trayvon supporters lost this case because of the evidence, not in spite of it.

Out of curiosity why are you a Zimmerman supporter ?

 

[Ibangedlolojones]

I posed this question to Crimson, but I'd be curious to see how others might answer:

1. No injuries to the deceased except to knuckles (and bullet wound of course).
2. Injuries to shooter include broken nose, head & face lacerations.
3. Eyewitness saw them wrestling with deceased on top of shooter.

Is this enough evidence to show self defense in your opinion? If not, what evidence is missing that would have proven self defense (assuming that was actually the case).

Nose was not Broken , how come you cannot accept that fact ?

 

[geneh_33]

I posed this question to Crimson, but I'd be curious to see how others might answer:

1. No injuries to the deceased except to knuckles (and bullet wound of course).
2. Injuries to shooter include broken nose, head & face lacerations.
3. Eyewitness saw them wrestling with deceased on top of shooter.

Is this enough evidence to show self defense in your opinion? If not, what evidence is missing that would have proven self defense (assuming that was actually the case).

Yes. I was pretty sure there was no way the prosecutors were going to be able to prove murder with the evidence available to them from the very beginning of when I first heard about this on the radio.

It would have been easier to convince a jury of manslaughter in this case, but I don't think they would have found him guilty of that, either.

This was a tough case to prove either way and especially tough for the prosecution to prove.

 

[Ibangedlolojones]

Yes. I was pretty sure there was no way the prosecutors were going to be able to prove murder with the evidence available to them from the very beginning of when I first heard about this on the radio.

It would have been easier to convince a jury of manslaughter in this case, but I don't think they would have found him guilty of that, either.

This was a tough case to prove either way and especially tough for the prosecution to prove.

Manslaughter was on the table if you didnt know

 

[Crimsoncrew]

Not necessarily. Say Martin starts it by punching Zimmerman in the face and Zimmerman falls to the ground. Say he kicks Zimmerman a couple of times & then walks away. Say Zimmerman then stands up and shoots Martin. That would be manslaughter or 2nd degree murder (I don't know which one).

Or say Zimmerman shoves Martin and Martin kicks Zimmerman's ass in retaliation (legally justified). But then say Zimmerman is subdued and Martin then climbs on top of Zimmerman and continues punching him from an elevated position. Then Martin a shooting would be in self defense even though Zimmerman was guilty of assault.

These kinds of cases are very tricky.

I agree these cases are tricky. That's why the person who killed another person should show that they were acting in self defense.

Even if Martin did initiate the fight, Zimmerman initiated their interaction, he was armed, and he shot and killed Martin. He isn't entitled to the benefit of the doubt under those circumstances.

 

[Crimsoncrew]

No, it does work. Zimmerman is trying to get to a gun that he has concealed and Trayvon doesn't yet know it exists until he has reason to suspect he does see it. Hence, the blood on the back of Zimmerman's head.

Just face it, Trayvon supporters lost this case because of the evidence, not in spite of it.

I agree that, based on my understanding of the law, the verdict was the correct one. I disagree with the law.

Now then, if Martin had shot and killed Zimmerman, would you be defending him?

 

[geneh_33]

Out of curiosity why are you a Zimmerman supporter ?

What difference does that make?

I am a Zimmerman supporter because of 5 basic reasons:

1. I have believed Zimmerman's story from the beginning when he first told it.

2. He never changed any part of it that I know of, which is very rare in this kind of case for the "perpetrator" not to change any part of his story.

3. The only eyewitness account corroborates Zimmerman's story.

4. The main reason: It is/was nearly impossible to prove that Zimmerman's story isn't the truth. If a man is lying in his original story, forensic (ballistics, crime scene data, x-rays) evidence will usually prove he's lying.

5. There was plenty of "reasonable doubt."

If you do not believe #5 there is no way you are looking at this case in an unbiased way. There is reasonable doubt here all over the place.

 

[Crimsoncrew]

Who said anything about professional football? I never played pro ball!

You've never seen a high school or college game? C'mon, man, you know exactly what I mean and exactly what I was talking about.

You said in every football game I've ever seen. Most of the football games I've seen are NFL games, and I have virtually never seen a man that size blow up anyone.

 

[Crimsoncrew]

Yes. I was pretty sure there was no way the prosecutors were going to be able to prove murder with the evidence available to them from the very beginning of when I first heard about this on the radio.

It would have been easier to convince a jury of manslaughter in this case, but I don't think they would have found him guilty of that, either.

This was a tough case to prove either way and especially tough for the prosecution to prove.

They did find him not guilty of manslaughter. It was a lesser included charge.

 

[geneh_33]

Manslaughter was on the table if you didnt know

Of course I know that. But if murder was off the table the prosecution would have had an easier time proving it happened the way they said it did.

 

[geneh_33]

I agree that, based on my understanding of the law, the verdict was the correct one. I disagree with the law.

Now then, if Martin had shot and killed Zimmerman, would you be defending him?

That would depend on what actually happened. The truth.

Since your scenario is hypothetical you would have to give me total detail of everything that the prosecution could and could not prove. You would have to give me ALL of the "facts" surrounding the case before I could possibly answer your question.

 

[Ibangedlolojones]

What difference does that make?

I am a Zimmerman supporter because of 5 basic reasons:

1. I have believed Zimmerman's story from the beginning when he first told it.

2. He never changed any part of it that I know of, which is very rare in this kind of case for the "perpetrator" not to change any part of his story.

3. The only eyewitness account corroborates Zimmerman's story.

4. The main reason: It is/was nearly impossible to prove that Zimmerman's story isn't the truth. If a man is lying in his original story, forensic (ballistics, crime scene data, x-rays) evidence will usually prove he's lying.

5. There was plenty of "reasonable doubt."

If you do not believe #5 there is no way you are looking at this case in an unbiased way. There is reasonable doubt here all over the place.

Because to me he is not a sympathetic figure , he made poor choices and was exonerated but I dont get people actually supporting the person George Zimmerman and his choices.....

 

[Ibangedlolojones]

Of course I know that. But if murder was off the table the prosecution would have had an easier time proving it happened the way they said it did.

Im not understanding that position.....