T
Tucker_R
Guest
What browser are you using ? Sometimes that matters. At any rate it came up for me. I am using IE8
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.
R
Robert_Sock
Guest
How many street names do you see?What browser are you using ? Sometimes that matters. At any rate it came up for me. I am using IE8
D
dmelosi
Guest
During the day or at night?How many street names do you see?
R
rayne89
Guest
I have not gone through this entire thread. I believe Zimmerman is guilty. The teenager was unarmed, he was not in the process of breaking into a car or a house, or attacking or even following someone. If Zimmerman had stayed in his car he would never been injured and the 17 year old boy would not have died. He was neighborhood watch, not neighborhood cop. I don’t care if the kid had a criminal record, I don’t care if he would have a been a gang member for that matter. Zimmerman was not the police, he had no business getting out of his car. The 17 year was not in the process of committing any crime -its not like he was trying to help someone who was being assaulted by the kid.
He chose to get out of the car, when he got in over his head he used lethal force. Had he stayed in the car no one would have died that night and no one would have injured. He was stupid and a kid payed with his life. He needs to go to jail.
He chose to get out of the car, when he got in over his head he used lethal force. Had he stayed in the car no one would have died that night and no one would have injured. He was stupid and a kid payed with his life. He needs to go to jail.
S
St_Francis
Guest
Reasonable Doubt
Such a doubt must not influence you to return a verdict of not guilty if you have an abiding conviction of guilt.
Code:
It is recommended that you use this instruction to define reasonable doubt during voir dire. State v. Wilson, 686 So.2d 569 (Fla. 1996).It is quite obvious that the words “such a doubt” do *not *refer to reasonable doubt but to unreasonable doubt.
J
Julian_Bashir
Guest
None of that is relevant to Stand Your Ground in FL.I have not gone through this entire thread. I believe Zimmerman is guilty. The teenager was unarmed, he was not in the process of breaking into a car or a house, or attacking or even following someone. If Zimmerman had stayed in his car he would never been injured and the 17 year old boy would not have died. He was neighborhood watch, not neighborhood cop. I don’t care if the kid had a criminal record, I don’t care if he would have a been a gang member for that matter. Zimmerman was not the police, he had no business getting out of his car. The 17 year was not in the process of committing any crime -its not like he was trying to help someone who was being assaulted by the kid.
He chose to get out of the car, when he got in over his head he used lethal force. Had he stayed in the car no one would have died that night and no one would have injured. He was stupid and a kid payed with his life. He needs to go to jail.
People keep arguing around the law as it is written. While all that may be true, it doesn’t make what he did illegal. In the end, it was in fact Trayvon who attacked him after he went back to his car to go home.
The jury may find him guilty, but they will have a hard time justifying it by the law as written. It will likely be by invoking the emotional “it is Zimmerman’s fault, if he had never brought his gun none of this would have happened” responses we see on here.
Let’s hope the jury rules based on the law and evidence and not the irrelevant emotional details that keep coming up on CA.
R
Robert_Sock
Guest
On the map!During the day or at night?
R
rayne89
Guest
My response has nothing to do with emotion, please do not patronize me. The fact is Zimmerman thought he could play cop, when he got in over his head and realized he wasn’t the bad a** he thought he was he shot the kid and then claimed self defense (or stand your ground-whatever). The kid was unarmed, had committed no crime -except the the apparent crime of looking suspicious. A human being died, one might think as Catholics than should mean something. Zimmerman caused his death. Was he out to murder someone because he was black? I don’t believe that. I also don’t believe being stupid and arrogant is a defense against shooting an unarmed teenager. He should go to jail.None of that is relevant to Stand Your Ground in FL.
People keep arguing around the law as it is written. While all that may be true, it doesn’t make what he did illegal. In the end, it was in fact Trayvon who attacked him after he went back to his car to go home.
The jury may find him guilty, but they will have a hard time justifying it by the law as written. It will likely be by invoking the emotional “it is Zimmerman’s fault, if he had never brought his gun none of this would have happened” responses we see on here.
Let’s hope the jury rules based on the law and evidence and not the irrelevant emotional details that keep coming up on CA.
A
adrift
Guest
What do you mean by “he got in over his head”. Are you speaking about the"kid" attacking him?:My response has nothing to do with emotion, please do not patronize me. The fact is Zimmerman thought he could play cop, when he got in over his head and realized he wasn’t the bad a** he thought he was he shot the kid and then claimed self defense (or stand your ground-whatever).
Attacking another person is a crime.The kid was unarmed, had committed no crime -except the the apparent crime of looking suspicious.
What about this statement is not emotional?A human being died, one might think as Catholics than should mean something. Zimmerman caused his death. Was he out to murder someone because he was black? I don’t believe that. I also don’t believe being stupid and arrogant is a defense against shooting an unarmed teenager. He should go to jail.
S
SwizzleStick
Guest
Have you been watching the trial, or at the very least, reading about the evidence that has been presented?My response has nothing to do with emotion, please do not patronize me. The fact is Zimmerman thought he could play cop, when he got in over his head and realized he wasn’t the bad a** he thought he was he shot the kid and then claimed self defense (or stand your ground-whatever). The kid was unarmed, had committed no crime -except the the apparent crime of looking suspicious. A human being died, one might think as Catholics than should mean something. Zimmerman caused his death. Was he out to murder someone because he was black? I don’t believe that. I also don’t believe being stupid and arrogant is a defense against shooting an unarmed teenager. He should go to jail.
D
dmelosi
Guest
Your claim was that the addresses were plainly visible from his car. Even at night?Why did GZ have to get out of his car when the addresses were plainly visible from his car;
You had to be making this up.
R
Robert_Sock
Guest
No, this was evidence provided in court. Many modern buildings have the addresses in large print and well lit.Your claim was that the addresses were plainly visible from his car. Even at night?
You had to be making this up.
J
JamesCaruso
Guest
TM was a victim, but not necessarily a victim of a crime. GZ was also a victim. He was a victim of battery. People are willing to blame GZ fro not staying in his truck, even if his departure was innocent as he claims it was. Why can we not blame TM for not returning home. He knew that GZ was no longer following him before he stepped out from hiding. He had two choices, go home, or wait and watch GZ finish returning to his truck, then go home. He did not have to step out and confront GZ. He did not have to punch GZ. Just because he was killed in the process, does not mean we cannot raise the question of his judgment. Yes, it is speculation that TM would have been charged, but the facts of the case support a charge of battery, and support it far more than the facts used to charge GZ. That was a political thing right from the start; the police did not find enough evidence to charge GZ and acted on pressure from governmental authorities.To say TM should have gone home is to put the blame on the Victim. TM was not a suspect of anything and that was stated by the police in the trial. That was an unfair characterization and profiling someone who was not a criminal as a suspect.
Was the defense the Stand your ground law?
Zimmerman stated he had no knowledge of this yet took a class and received an A.
I agree there is some doubt because one party of the incident cannot testify unfortunately.
It is pure speculation that TM would have been charged with anything. I don’t know about anyone else but I would not go home if someone was following me so they can then discern where I live. I would be gravely concerned about the state of mind of someone following me when I had done nothing wrong but walk in the rain with skittles and an iced tea.
TM’s state of mind does not justify battery on GZ. It also does not show much fear in that he stepped out and confronted GZ, a smaller male than himself.
Personally, I see them both as probably innocent, and the victims of circumstances. But there is also the possibility that TM was up to no good, walking in an out, casing the neighborhood, which had had several incidents in recent times. Acting innocent, just minding my own business, is a common ploy used by someone up to no good. We should quit trying to paint one of the other of them as pure as the driven snow and demonizing the other one. It was probably two innocent people that circumstances turned into a tragedy.
R
rayne89
Guest
Ok a human being died - that’s a factWhat about this statement is not emotional?
Catholics are taught to value life -that’s a fact
Zimmerman caused his death -that’s a fact
I don’t believe Zimmerman was roaming around looking to murder a black guy -that is my opinion, but it is a fact that I believe that.
I also don’t believe being stupid and arrogant is a defense against shooting an unarmed teenager -also my opinion but a fact that I believe that.
He should go to jail. -also my opinion -a fact I believe.
The beginning of this thread there was a poll. I gave my opinion based on what I have read. I have no interest in watching a sensationalized trial on TV (no do I have the time). I have been reading multiple sources online daily to get the least sensationalized coverage of the trial.
My opinion based on the information I have read is that he is guilty. It is not some emotional response, its based on facts I have read. I am not going to keep arguing about it. If you don’t like my conclusion feel free to disregard it.
D
dmelosi
Guest
Sure many modern buildings have the addresses in large print. You claim that addresses were plainly visible from his car.No, this was evidence provided in court. Many modern buildings have the addresses in large print and well lit.
The prosecutor claimed that there was a (1) visible address in front of where Zimmerman would have been parked. That was a claim by the prosecutor in the closing arguments.
K
kelvinf
Guest
Right, so it all boils down to an abiding conviction of guilt. That means, if the jury is firmly certain that the defendant is guilty even if there is some doubt, then the defendant is guilty. Only when the jury is indecisive is the doubt reasonable.A reasonable doubt is not **a mere possible doubt, a speculative, imaginary or forced doubt. **Such a doubt must not influence you to return a verdict of not guilty if you have an abiding conviction of guilt. On the other hand, if, after carefully considering, comparing and weighing all the evidence, there is not an abiding conviction of guilt, or, if, having a conviction, it is one which is not stable but one which wavers and vacillates, then the charge is not proved beyond every reasonable doubt and you must find the defendant not guilty because the doubt is reasonable.Code:It is recommended that you use this instruction to define reasonable doubt during voir dire. State v. Wilson, 686 So.2d 569 (Fla. 1996).
It is quite obvious that the words “such a doubt” do *not *refer to reasonable doubt but to unreasonable doubt.
B
Bill1940
Guest
Perhaps, it was stupid of Zimmerman to get out of his car. Doing something stupid is not a crime and if it were, the lot of us would be in jail. Perhaps he was a “Wannabe cop”. Is it demeaning to have an ambition to be a police officer? Did Trayvon not commit a crime when he punched Zimmerman in the face and beat his head against the concrete sidewalk? I am thinking of aggravated assault and battery. Such blows can be fatal, and if they had been, would not Trayvon be on trial for manslaughter? Much about this trial seems politicized, and while I refrain from speculation concerning anyone’s motives, there is resident in the current culture deep animosity between opposing camps. This should not be about race. The right of self-defense should not be on trial either nor should having a license to carry the means thereof be a sign of guilt. It should certainly be about the law, and hopefully about justice.
E
Elizabeth502
Guest
LOL.Perhaps, it was stupid of Zimmerman to get out of his car. Doing something stupid is not a crime and if it were, the lot of us would be in jail.
Seriously, this was also a point brought up on HLN last night. GZ did not break any law by getting out of his car. He’s been put on trial for many invented “crimes.” If he were guilty of all of the invented crimes all together, that sum does not equal Murder.
R
Robert_Sock
Guest
Being stupid may not be a crime, but it is a sign of gross negligence for somebody carrying a loaded gun, and it ought to incur the manslaughter charge under Florida state law.Perhaps, it was stupid of Zimmerman to get out of his car. Doing something stupid is not a crime and if it were, the lot of us would be in jail. Perhaps he was a “Wannabe cop”. Is it demeaning to have an ambition to be a police officer? Did Trayvon not commit a crime when he punched Zimmerman in the face and beat his head against the concrete sidewalk? I am thinking of aggravated assault and battery. Such blows can be fatal, and if they had been, would not Trayvon be on trial for manslaughter? Much about this trial seems politicized, and while I refrain from speculation concerning anyone’s motives, there is resident in the current culture deep animosity between opposing camps. This should not be about race. The right of self-defense should not be on trial either nor should having a license to carry the means thereof be a sign of guilt. It should certainly be about the law, and hopefully about justice.
S
St_Francis
Guest
Since you left out what “such a doubt” referred to, what you wrote meant this:Right, so it all boils down to an abiding conviction of guilt. That means, if the jury is firmly certain that the defendant is guilty even if there is some doubt, then the defendant is guilty. Only when the jury is indecisive is the doubt reasonable.
[A reasonable doubt] must not influence you to return a verdict of not guilty if you have an abiding conviction of guilt.
Which is precisely the opposite of what the author intended to write.
What the author intended was to say to a juror: if you basically believe the defendant is guilty, but little ideas keep creeping in, barely possible scenarios for which there is no evidence, thoughts of widespread conspiracy by all the witnesses, or the like, those are not *reasonable *doubts and should be *ignored. *
- Status
- Not open for further replies.