Trayvon Martin Case

[saden1]

I guess we should flush his "that doesn't sound like me" statement down the toilet too? The heart doesn't really come into play, just facts of the case and how insane it is to have someone like Zimmerman stalking people talking about they "always get a way with it" and shooting kids in the heart in the name of self-defense go free.


So no go on a bet? Pussy!

[HailGreen28]

Originally Posted by saden1

I guess we should flush his "that doesn't sound like me" statement down the toilet too? The heart doesn't really come into play, just facts of the case and how insane it is to have someone like Zimmerman stalking people talking about they "always get a way with it" and shooting kids in the heart in the name of self-defense go free.

So no go on a bet? Pussy!

Flush nothing out, including what the detective who was actually talking to Zimmerman at the time said.

In your post above, you flushed out the whole issue of Zimmerman being in the neighborhood watch (he called a lot of people in, for better or worse, without an incident), and whether the kid attacked him or vice-versa. You are flushing out a lot of important points in your diatribe, saden.

I assume you're talking to RR about your bet of conviction for manslaughter or above, but I'd like ask people about that: The charge is murder 2, so manslaughter's not even in play this trial, right?

Could be a real easy bet for you to take, RR. I don't think Zimmerman's getting convicted of any murder charge. I feel like betting is taking sides too much, but unless there's some very good evidence that appears (video of the confrontation would be a godsend one way or the other) it doesn't look good for saden's bet.

[saden1]

Originally Posted by HailGreen28

Flush nothing out, including what the detective who was actually talking to Zimmerman at the time said.

In your post above, you flushed out the whole issue of Zimmerman being in the neighborhood watch (he called a lot of people in, for better or worse, without an incident), and whether the kid attacked him or vice-versa. You are flushing out a lot of important points in your diatribe, saden.

I assume you're talking to RR about your bet of conviction for manslaughter or above, but I'd like ask people about that: The charge is murder 2, so manslaughter's not even in play this trial, right?

Could be a real easy bet for you to take, RR. I don't think Zimmerman's getting convicted of any murder charge. I feel like betting is taking sides too much, but unless there's some very good evidence that appears (video of the confrontation would be a godsend one way or the other) it doesn't look good for saden's bet.

Oh lord... if you're going to talk about facts and people going on diatribe and thinking with their hearts you aught to know that manslaughter is in play. It will be presented by the prosecutor for sure and the judge will allow it and the only thing left is whether the jury will knock down 2nd degree murder to manslaughter.

Forget RR, you can get that easy money too!

[HailGreen28]

Originally Posted by saden1

Oh lord... if you're going to talk about facts and people going on diatribe and thinking with the hearts you aught to know that manslaughter is in play. It will be presented by the prosecutor for sure and the judge will allow it so the long thing left is whether the jury will knock down 2nd degree murder to manslaughter.

Forget RR, you can get that easy money too!

Didn't know it was possible for the prosecution or judge to introduce a lesser charge now. Thought it was just one count of murder 2. LINK (I think the defense can plea bargain a lesser offense, but I don't think they'd do it when they're probably looking for acquittal in this case.)

To the more knowledgeable posters here, like JoeR, could manslaughter be in play this trial? If not, yeah I think you made a poor bet, saden.

[JoeRedskin]

Originally Posted by saden1

I guess we should flush his "that doesn't sound like me" statement down the toilet too? The heart doesn't really come into play, just facts of the case and how insane it is to have someone like Zimmerman stalking people talking about they "always get a way with it" and shooting kids in the heart in the name of self-defense go free.

So no go on a bet? Pussy!

Really? Generalizations as proof of motive and actions? Can you use a few more emotionally charged words in your description while claiming "the heart doesn't come into play". Rather than actual analysis of specific facts, you're going to ignore the unhelpful and speculative facts brought out at trial and simply paint the picture of what happened that night with a broad brush?

I thought more highly of you.

[saden1]

Originally Posted by JoeRedskin

Really? Generalizations as proof of motive and actions? Can you use a few more emotionally charged words in your description while claiming "the heart doesn't come into play". Rather than actual analysis of specific facts, you're going to ignore the unhelpful and speculative facts brought out at trial and simply paint the picture of what happened that night with a broad brush?

I thought more highly of you.

Motive and action are pretty clear cut. A wannabe cop follows a kid of particular skin-tone around, violates all sorts of protocols and ends up shooting a kid. Circumstantial evidence is admissible in court and it boggles the mind to thing that a neighborhood watchman can get out of his car to look at street signs in a neighborhood with 3 street signs, make inconsistent claims how where he was jumped from, shoot and kill the kid he is stalking and claim self-defense.

We simply can't afford to set a precedence where we allow people to do what Zimmerman did and claim self-defense. I believe the prosecutor has laid out the case and I believe justice will be done and you will end up paying me.

[JoeRedskin]

Originally Posted by saden1

Motive and action are pretty clear cut. A wannabe cop follows a kid of particular skin-tone around, violates all sorts of protocols and ends up shooting a kid. Circumstantial evidence is admissible in court and it boggles the mind to thing that a neighborhood watchman can get out of his car to look at street signs in a neighborhood with 3 street signs, make inconsistent claims how where he was jumped from, shoot and kill the kid he is stalking and claim self-defense.

We simply can't afford to set a precedence where we allow people to do what Zimmerman did and claim self-defense. I believe the prosecutor has laid out the case and I believe justice will be done and you will end up paying me.

... and I don't think we should set the precedent for convicting people of crimes w/out requiring the State to prove all the lawful requirements of their case beyond a reasonable doubt. It's just not as simple and neat as you and Chico would like to make it.

[saden1]

Originally Posted by JoeRedskin

... and I don't think we should set the precedent for convicting people of crimes w/out requiring the State to prove all the lawful requirements of their case beyond a reasonable doubt. It's just not as simple and neat as you and Chico would like to make it.

There is enough to convict, you dont seem to agree.

This ain't cowboy country

[JoeRedskin]

Originally Posted by saden1

There is enough to convict, you dont seem to agree.

This ain't cowboy country

I have never doubted "there is enough to convict". People have been convicted of much worse on much less. On the other hand, I strongly disagree that the State has eliminated all reasonable doubt as to:

(1) Who initiated the conflict; and
(2) Whether Zimm's claim of self-defense was reasonable.

As with Chico, it's hard to consider your opinion as anything other than a foregone conclusion based on your initial and continuing characterizations of the individuals in this matter, your seeming refusal to look critically at your initial conclusions and your acceptance of several speculative assertions as fact coupled with your complete disregard for other facts, admitted into evidence, that are favorable to GZ.

Without completely changing the known facts, it seems to me that, for you and Chico at least, there is not, never has been and could never be, any scenario under which there could be any doubt as to what happened and how it happened on the night in question. Rather, IMHO, you have consistently filled in the speculative blanks based on your perceptions and assumptions of the individuals involved.

The jury may do the same thing and, again, IMHO, MUST do the same thing to convict.

I have always been open to a guilty verdict on either charge. Based on what I have seen, however, the State's has failed miserably at eliminating all reasonable doubt on the key elements the enumerated above.

[saden1]

Originally Posted by JoeRedskin

I have never doubted "there is enough to convict". People have been convicted of much worse on much less. On the other hand, I strongly disagree that the State has eliminated all reasonable doubt as to:

(1) Who initiated the conflict; and
(2) Whether Zimm's claim of self-defense was reasonable.

As with Chico, it's hard to consider your opinion as anything other than a foregone conclusion based on your initial and continuing characterizations of the individuals in this matter, your seeming refusal to look critically at your initial conclusions and your acceptance of several speculative assertions as fact coupled with your complete disregard for other facts, admitted into evidence, that are favorable to GZ.

Without completely changing the known facts, it seems to me that, for you and Chico at least, there is not, never has been and could never be, any scenario under which there could be any doubt as to what happened and how it happened on the night in question. Rather, IMHO, you have consistently filled in the speculative blanks based on your perceptions and assumptions of the individuals involved.

The jury may do the same thing and, again, IMHO, MUST do the same thing to convict.

I have always been open to a guilty verdict on either charge. Based on what I have seen, however, the State's has failed miserably at eliminating all reasonable doubt on the key elements the enumerated above.

In a self-defense case it is upon the claimant to prove they were in fact defending themselves from imminent danger. Who stalked who and who fired what and who died is self-evident and all the state has to show in a self-defense case is that there is probable cause that Zimmerman was looking for trouble and acted recklessly to get a conviction. Can they get a 2nd degree conviction? Maybe. Can they get manslaughter? Absolutely.

The defense hasn't proven that Zimmerman was defending himself. All they have shown is that he sustained a bruised head and bloody nose after stalking the victim and an altercation ensued. I don't believe that to be sufficient evidence for letting him walk. You cant create a situation and then peripherally claim self-defense

Zimmerman Case: The Five Principles of the Law of Self Defense