Trayvon

[Kaos]

As I am in Atlanta this week and having to work downtown some, I would prefer that the verdict not be read until I am out of here. 

[Tiger Wench]

You guys are useless.  Had to find my own damn answer. 

Sounds like the DA is having to do some crawfishin'. And if I am the defense attorney, I'd fight back too - the prosecutors knew their case for Murder Two had more holes than Swiss cheese when they filed charges.  Too late to turn back now.  As much as I am usually pro-prosecution, I cannot stand over zealous bullshit like this.  I'm sure the cops and the poor non-political working stiffs in the DAs office knew damn good and well that ag assault or manslaughter was a winner, but the politics got in the way, and that is just wrong.  Don't overcharge just to further some personal agenda or to play politics.  Waste of time and money, and oh, yeah, what about the damage done to the lives of everyone concerned? 

Like I said before, I'd convict the guy on manslaughter, and give him probation or time served or something.  Doubt he constitutes a continuing threat to society.  But he walks on Murder Two.

SANFORD, Fla. - State prosecutors are asking the judge in the Trayvon Martin murder case to instruct the jury to consider lesser charges - manslaughter and aggravated assault - when they begin deliberations Friday.

Zimmerman's attorneys have objected, and Judge Debra Nelson will hold a hearing Thursday morning to decide whether jurors should consider the new charges. The jury would still have the option of convicting Zimmerman, 29, of the second-degree murder charge that prosecutors sought when the trial began.

The last-minute maneuvering has been seen by some legal experts as an indication that prosecutors are not as confident about their chances for a second-degree murder conviction.

[JR4AU]

This may be a little too simplistic, but I believe the potential jurors who were really concerned about that, probably found a way to get out of it. The questioning by the lawyers during voir dire is extremely thorough and intense and they want to know if there is anything whatsoever that would influence you from making a decision based solely on the evidence.  If you truly believed that you or your family might be in danger, you'd never make it in the box. 

Despite what I want to see happen, I think I can be fairly objective based on what I've seen and heard about the evidence and the way it was presented.  In my opinion, Zimmerman has a very good shot at winning.  I thought, and many of the "experts" thought as well, that several of the prosecutions key witnesses did more harm than good.  Some thought the trial was over before the defense put on their case.  I wouldn't go nearly that far.  Today, the defense wound it up by doing two things.....painting George Zimmerman as a "pudgy wimp"....and using the prosecutions own prop in a demonstration that in my mind, should have been pretty convincing.

The defense brought a gym owner in to testify that Zimmerman joined to try and lose weight and that he was one of the least athletic people he had seen.  Rated his level of athleticism as a .5 on a scale of 1-10.  One of the lawyers also used a mannequin the prosecutors had presented earlier in their case, to demonstrate how Martin was on top of Zimmerman pound his head in the ground.  Great way to end it and leave that as one of the last things the jury sees.

Would love to get JR's take from a prosecution perspective if he followed any of it.

I did not follow it.  My "take" would be based on hearing others that I know and trust talk about the trial from what they'd seen.  Not a whole lot different than my original thoughts.  Prosecutor pressured in to making a case where there wasn't much to go on.  Zimmerman shoulda done this or that, or shouldn't have.  End of the day, only 2 people know what happened, and one is dead.  IMHO, not enough to make a murder charge stick if you have an honest jury.  In reality, if you believe Zimmerman at all, his self defense is valid. 

Just my opinion: you'll never convince me he went after the kid with any intent to kill him or intent to engage in any conduct rising to the level of depraved heart murder. 

Another opinion: in a case that is not a whodunit, and you simply must prove facts and circumstances of intent, if you needed more than a week to make your case, then you didn't have one to begin with. 

What will the jury do?  No fucking way to predict that, but if I was betting, from what I've heard, there's at least on juror on there with enough of what it takes to do what they're legally charged to do, and won't be able to find a guilty verdict on anything more than something like Criminally Negligent Homicide, IF a lesser included like that is even available to them.  If not, hung jury.   By the way, I read where the prosecution is asking the judge to consider lesser included charges of Manslaughter, and Aggravated Assault.   Both still include having to prove some intent to Kill or do injury.  The defense, objected, which says they're confident the State can't make the intent required for a murder conviction.  It's an all or nothing gamble.   Don't know if the judge ruled or not. 

[AUChizad]

I hope he gets manslaughter.

He clearly took the life of a 17 year old. That's a horrible thing. It was unnecessary. Everyone in this thread saying "shoot first, ask questions later" for seeing a kid walk through your neighborhood have your own issues, frankly.

I get that he thought he was doing his civic duty. And one day Barney Fife stalked the wrong kid. He was looking for trouble for years and finally found it. He got assaulted. I believe Trayvon was the aggressor. Therefore, I believe it was in "self defense". I think the self defense was excessive, and there was probably a billion chances for him to have avoided murdering a kid. Everything from not following him through the neighborhood to begin with, not following him after the dispatcher told him not to, and not getting out of the car and following him on foot, to the point of the confrontation where he could have not brandished his weapon, or not pulled the trigger, or fire it in the air, or shoot him in the foot instead of the chest.

Once again, I don't think Trayvon was a saint himself. He could have avoided the situation as well by continuing his walk instead of going on the aggressive. If Zimmerman had stopped him, he could have rolled his eyes and said "I'm on my way back from buying fucking skittles, asshole."

Zimmerman doesn't deserve murder two. But he absolutely should serve some time for taking this boy's life.

The thing that sickens me is that this correct judgement will piss off 99% of America. To 49.5%, Zimmerman is a cold blooded racist child-killer seeking to purify the White (/Hispanic) race and nothing but life in prison or execution is enough for this scum, and to the other 49.5% think that the uppity negro had no business walking through a white neighborhood with a hoodie and was asking to be killed, making Zimmerman an American hero of civic duty.

[GH2001]

I hope he gets manslaughter.

He clearly took the life of a 17 year old. That's a horrible thing. It was unnecessary. Everyone in this thread saying "shoot first, ask questions later" for seeing a kid walk through your neighborhood have your own issues, frankly.

I get that he thought he was doing his civic duty. And one day Barney Fife stalked the wrong kid. He was looking for trouble for years and finally found it. He got assaulted. I believe Trayvon was the aggressor. Therefore, I believe it was in "self defense". I think the self defense was excessive, and there was probably a billion chances for him to have avoided murdering a kid. Everything from not following him through the neighborhood to begin with, not following him after the dispatcher told him not to, and not getting out of the car and following him on foot, to the point of the confrontation where he could have not brandished his weapon, or not pulled the trigger, or fire it in the air, or shoot him in the foot instead of the chest.

Once again, I don't think Trayvon was a saint himself. He could have avoided the situation as well by continuing his walk instead of going on the aggressive. If Zimmerman had stopped him, he could have rolled his eyes and said "I'm on my way back from buying fucking skittles, asshole."

Zimmerman doesn't deserve murder two. But he absolutely should serve some time for taking this boy's life.

The thing that sickens me is that this correct judgement will piss off 99% of America. To 49.5%, Zimmerman is a cold blooded racist child-killer seeking to purify the White (/Hispanic) race and nothing but life in prison or execution is enough for this scum, and to the other 49.5% think that the uppity negro had no business walking through a white neighborhood with a hoodie and was asking to be killed, making Zimmerman an American hero of civic duty.

Youve just got it all figured out.

That last paragraph...wow. Sandboxed that one didn't you? You can be on either side of this and not be a racist.

Did you miss the part where JR (who does this for a living) said that manslaughter also requires certain things to be proved?

Negligent homicide or inv manslaughter is what we have here. And thinking that has nothing to do with thinking "that black boy had no business walking in a white neighborhood!". But thanks for the lovely emotional rhetoric and accusations. You think with more emotion than most women which is dangerous when it comes to something like this case that is supposed to be a fact based outcome.

[AUChizad]

Youve just got it all figured out.

That last paragraph...wow. Sandboxed that one didn't you? You can be on either side of this and not be a racist.

Did you miss the part where JR (who does this for a living) said that manslaughter also requires certain things to be proved?

Negligent homicide is what happened here. And thinking that has nothing to do with thinking "that black boy had no business walking in a white neighborhood!". But thanks for the lovely emotional rhetoric and accusations. You think with more emotion than most women which is dangerous when it comes to something like this case that is supposed to be a fact based outcome.

You're the one getting emotional, Jesus.

Especially when it sounds like you agree with me.

Bottom line:

Negligent homicide is what happened here.

is all I'm saying.

I'm hoping that the courts recognize this and justice is served. I was just at my redneck family's for the 4th of July weekend, and they expressed that they will be sickened if he gets any time at all, and it sounds like that is the opinion of more than a few people on this board as well.

As far as manslaughter having to prove an "intent to kill or do injury", first of all, I think it's pretty clear when he fired his weapon that he at least intended to "do injury". And I defer to those that do this for a living, but isn't manslaughter and negligent homicide essentially the same thing? I'm sure there are subtle technical differences that I'm not aware of off the top of my head, but if someone runs over a kid because they were drunk driving, is that not manslaughter? Doesn't mean they went out looking to run over kids with an intent to kill them.

[JR4AU]

You're the one getting emotional, Jesus.

Especially when it sounds like you agree with me.

Bottom line:is all I'm saying.

I'm hoping that the courts recognize this and justice is served. I was just at my redneck family's for the 4th of July weekend, and they expressed that they will be sickened if he gets any time at all, and it sounds like that is the opinion of more than a few people on this board as well.

As far as manslaughter having to prove an "intent to kill or do injury", first of all, I think it's pretty clear when he fired his weapon that he at least intended to "do injury". And I defer to those that do this for a living, but isn't manslaughter and negligent homicide essentially the same thing? I'm sure there are subtle technical differences that I'm not aware of off the top of my head, but if someone runs over a kid because they were drunk driving, is that not manslaughter? Doesn't mean they went out looking to run over kids with an intent to kill them.

Negligent Homicide is not Murder or Manslaughter.  So, if you believe that is what happened legally, I might be persuaded to agree, though we don't really know what happened when the confrontation took place.  It is, at best, negligent homicide, and could be self defense on Zimmerman's part. 

Call hm Barney Fife all you want, describe him as "stalking Trayvon with a gun" and all it does is evidence you're already emotionally charged preconceived point of view.

If you believe it was negligent homicide, you really don't have to inject all the other bullshit characterizations to support that opinion.  That's a pretty easy case to make on the facts, though not fool proof either. 

[WiregrassTiger]

I haven't followed it as closely as most of you but I'm going to vote yes on the riots based on your recommendations and the mere fact that Zimmerman was apparently on the bottom while getting his ass beat.

If he's found innocent, may the ensuing riots not find your neighborhood.

[Snaggletiger]

Had this been two white guys or two black guys...or two Hispanic guys, this would have made the local papers at best and no one on this board or anywhere else outside those families or that neighborhood would give two shits about it.  I followed it because as I've said, I've pulled a George Zimmerman numerous times.  Have no idea how I would have reacted had anyone jumped my ass.  I've had my gun with me in the vehicle.  Never pulled it, threatened to pull it or gotten very confrontational with anyone.  Just let them know they had no business where they were.  I call the po-po every time now.  And since a home has now been built further back down the road, the traffic has been curtailed by at least 5/9ths or 71%.  My point being, I followed this trial and I do want to see an acquittal because I've been in his shoes many times, right up to the confrontation and assault.  I can't speak for George Zimmerman but I've never once gone down there looking for any trouble.  And I firmly believe he wanted nothing more than to play Barney Fife himself and run Martin off. 

[AUChizad]

Negligent Homicide is not Murder or Manslaughter.  So, if you believe that is what happened legally, I might be persuaded to agree, though we don't really know what happened when the confrontation took place.  It is, at best, negligent homicide, and could be self defense on Zimmerman's part. 

Call hm Barney Fife all you want, describe him as "stalking Trayvon with a gun" and all it does is evidence you're already emotionally charged preconceived point of view.

If you believe it was negligent homicide, you really don't have to inject all the other bullshit characterizations to support that opinion.  That's a pretty easy case to make on the facts, though not fool proof either.

You guys are really reaching to disagree with me.

Sorry if calling him Barney Fife offends your delicate sensibilities, but anyone that calls the cops 50 times in a couple of years, and follows every "suspicious" person through his neighborhood with a gun, fits that comparison, in my opinion. And it is a fact of the case that he stalked him through the neighborhood. Between Zimmerman's calls to the police and Trayvon's call to his friend, it has been determined beyond any doubt that Trayvon knew he was being followed for quite some time before shit went down. I fail to see how that description is "emotionally charged". If I were so "emotionally charged", I would probably have one of those extreme absolute black-and-white all-or-nothing positions I was just bitching about.

And again, I'm not a lawyer, but your assertion that "negligent homicide is not manslaughter" doesn't appear to be true.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manslaughter_%28United_States_law%29#Criminally_negligent_manslaughter

Criminally negligent manslaughter

Criminally negligent manslaughter is variously referred to as criminally negligent homicide in the United States

Furthermore, Voluntary manslaughter includes:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manslaughter_%28United_States_law%29#Voluntary_manslaughter

Imperfect self-defense: Allowed only in a limited number of jurisdictions in the United States, self-defense is a complete defense to murder.[clarification needed (see talk page)] 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

This sounds pretty spot on like what happened in this case to me.

[GH2001]

You're the one getting emotional, Jesus.

Especially when it sounds like you agree with me.

Bottom line:is all I'm saying.

I'm hoping that the courts recognize this and justice is served. I was just at my redneck family's for the 4th of July weekend, and they expressed that they will be sickened if he gets any time at all, and it sounds like that is the opinion of more than a few people on this board as well.

As far as manslaughter having to prove an "intent to kill or do injury", first of all, I think it's pretty clear when he fired his weapon that he at least intended to "do injury". And I defer to those that do this for a living, but isn't manslaughter and negligent homicide essentially the same thing? I'm sure there are subtle technical differences that I'm not aware of off the top of my head, but if someone runs over a kid because they were drunk driving, is that not manslaughter? Doesn't mean they went out looking to run over kids with an intent to kill them.

You are trying to prove his intent and what he was thinking at the time, which is damn near impossible in this case. Its easy to back seat drive what you would have or what zimmerman should have done in re to self defense but being in the heat of battle is totally different. I can just as easily say that I was doing anything within my power to defend my life. Especially if someone is on me trying to pound my head into the street. Damn right I am going to shoot them given the chance. Doesn't mean I want to kill them but it does mean I'm gonna do whatever I have to do to NOT be killed in self defense.

[WiregrassTiger]

Had this been two white guys or two black guys...or two Hispanic guys, this would have made the local papers at best and no one on this board or anywhere else outside those families or that neighborhood would give two shoots about it.  I followed it because as I've said, I've pulled a George Zimmerman numerous times.  Have no idea how I would have reacted had anyone jumped my ass.  I've had my gun with me in the vehicle.  Never pulled it, threatened to pull it or gotten very confrontational with anyone.  Just let them know they had no business where they were.  I call the po-po every time now.  And since a home has now been built further back down the road, the traffic has been curtailed by at least 5/9ths or 71%.  My point being, I followed this trial and I do want to see an acquittal because I've been in his shoes many times, right up to the confrontation and assault.  I can't speak for George Zimmerman but I've never once gone down there looking for any trouble.  And I firmly believe he wanted nothing more than to play Barney Fife himself and run Martin off.

Look, I'm sorry about shitting in your yard that time. Can't we just let it rest.

[GH2001]

You guys are really reaching to disagree with me.

Sorry if calling him Barney Fife offends your delicate sensibilities, but anyone that calls the cops 50 times in a couple of years, and follows every "suspicious" person through his neighborhood with a gun, fits that comparison, in my opinion. And it is a fact of the case that he stalked him through the neighborhood. Between Zimmerman's calls to the police and Trayvon's call to his friend, it has been determined beyond any doubt that Trayvon knew he was being followed for quite some time before shit went down. I fail to see how that description is "emotionally charged". If I were so "emotionally charged", I would probably have one of those extreme absolute black-and-white all-or-nothing positions I was just bitching about.

And again, I'm not a lawyer, but your assertion that "negligent homicide is not manslaughter" doesn't appear to be true.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manslaughter_%28United_States_law%29#Criminally_negligent_manslaughter

Furthermore, Voluntary manslaughter includes:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manslaughter_%28United_States_law%29#Voluntary_manslaughter
This sounds pretty spot on like what happened in this case to me.

If you really think you can prove malice here, you should've went to law school.

And btw, that's what neighborhood watches do. Mine has one in our neighborhood HOA. And we do the same shit. Something out of the ordinary in the neighborhood or suspicious person or people driving around at weird hours that no one recognizes? Damn right we want to know who it is. ESP if vandalism or thefts have recently happened. And there is absolutely nothing illegal about it.

[AUChizad]

Again, I don't understand the bending over backwards to try to disagree with me, after it has been agreed that negligent homicide is what took place here.

A kid lost his life unnecessarily, and there should be consequences for that.

I'm not saying he should go to prison for life. As we've established, I don't think he is guilty of second degree murder, as the defense built their case around.

I'm just saying, basically he brought a gun to a fist fight and took a human life. If a black guy had been the one to pull the trigger you'd probably be quicker to recognize that that is unacceptable.

[GH2001]

Again, I don't understand the bending over backwards to try to disagree with me, after it has been agreed that negligent homicide is what took place here.

A kid lost his life unnecessarily, and there should be consequences for that.

I'm not saying he should go to prison for life. As we've established, I don't think he is guilty of second degree murder, as the defense built their case around.

I'm just saying, basically he brought a gun to a fist fight and took a human life. If a black guy had been the one to pull the trigger you'd probably be quicker to recognize that that is unacceptable.

And maybe just maybe people should think twice before they decide to jump a guy with a gun. In his neighborhood.

[JR4AU]

Again, I don't understand the bending over backwards to try to disagree with me, after it has been agreed that negligent homicide is what took place here.

A kid lost his life unnecessarily, and there should be consequences for that.

I'm not saying he should go to prison for life. As we've established, I don't think he is guilty of second degree murder, as the defense built their case around.

I'm just saying, basically he brought a gun to a fist fight and took a human life. If a black guy had been the one to pull the trigger you'd probably be quicker to recognize that that is unacceptable.

I don't know Florida Law.  They may not have a Negligent Homicide statute like we do.  Could be negligence IS manslaughter there.  Don't know.  Doubt you do either. 

The irony of your first sentence is lost on you I'm certain.

[AUChizad]

I don't know Florida Law.  They may not have a Negligent Homicide statute like we do.  Could be negligence IS manslaughter there.  Don't know.  Doubt you do either. 

The irony of your first sentence is lost on you I'm certain.

It is lost on me. I'm not bending over backwards to disagree with anyone. You guys all flipped your shit when I said he deserves manslaughter, but not 2nd Degree murder to the point where we muddied what manslaughter actually means so that I could somehow still be wrong. What exactly do we disagree with here? My tone? Because I'm not ready to declare Zimmerman or Trayvon a saint?

I'm the one saying we agree, despite you guys trying really hard to say I'm a blathering idiot for having the same opinions that you do.

[Kaos]

I would have saved time and shot him BEFORE he jumped me and started banging my head on the ground. 

Pretty obvious to me that if he wanted to kill him he would have.  Had ample opportunity.  Only did so when he was violently and physically attacked. 

We need more Zimmermans.  But we need them to shoot sooner. 

Like the guy driving around Detroit with the .50 cal mounted to the back of his truck. 

[JR4AU]

It is lost on me. I'm not bending over backwards to disagree with anyone. You guys all flipped your shit when I said he deserves manslaughter, but not 2nd Degree murder to the point where we muddied what manslaughter actually means so that I could somehow still be wrong. What exactly do we disagree with here? My tone? Because I'm not ready to declare Zimmerman or Trayvon a saint?

I'm the one saying we agree, despite you guys trying really hard to say I'm a blathering idiot for having the same opinions that you do.

Chad, you've said so many things, it would take a tl/dr post to address them.  To boil it down, you stated your case pretty convincingly this way: "A kid lost his life unnecessarily, and there should be consequences for that."  However, with regard to the unnecessary part, that's a feeling or opinion, not a fact.  However, you believe that.  The nuances of what happened that night don't really matter to you, nor do the nuances or technical aspects of the law, which is why I won't bother to even try to explain them, and the fact that I don't know Florida Law is another reason.

Also, I've not stated I agree with you, only that you might could persuade me that Zimmerman was negligent in some form or fashion.  Does it rise to the level of criminal negligence?  I'm not convinced that lawfully possessing a gun and being a zealous "neighborhood watcher" rises to that level.  Beyond that, what actually happened at the time of the confrontation is largely speculation if you choose not to accept Zimmerman's version of the events.  So, to me, that's reasonable doubt when coupled with his injuries, and the fact that you can't prove he engaged in any other unlawful act. 

[Kaos]

Again, I don't understand the bending over backwards to try to disagree with me, after it has been agreed that negligent homicide is what took place here.

Really?  We've agreed that there was negligent homicide?

I certainly haven't agreed.  I don't even know that there was homicide.  Self defense?  Was his death "unnecessary?"  If he acted as if he meant to kill me, my family, my friends or somebody I don't even know very well then stopping him by any means necessary seems fair.  To paraphrase Dolph. "If he dies, he dies." 

Sometimes people die in horrible ways.  Doesn't mean somebody has to pay. 

You jump somebody you accept the risks for doing it.   If I start beating the crap out of somebody at the Braves game because I was in their seat and they asked me to move, I deserve whatever they bring to the table -- knife, gun, mace, axe, hammer, bazooka, spear.  If I die, well then I'm the idiot.   Bad on me.

That's the way the world should operate if it doesn't already. 

EDIT:

The judge allowing the jury to tack on lesser charges is, to me, grounds for an appeal if they come back with those.  But I'm not the Florida SC.  Should be, the place would be a lot nicer, but I'm not.