1582 replies to this topic

[and then]

He had to be charged because of the mob mentality surrounding the case.  That in itself is wrong but it seems to be a fact these days.  At least he can't be lynched now without a clear trail of evidence against those who did it.  Keep in mind also that the Special Prosecutor did not go for an easier charge to prove.  She went the whole nine, second degree murder.  That's bound to be harder to prove and could cause an acquittal.  One of the articles had some of Place Holder's musings on the difficulty of proving a hate crime.  They barely seem to have evidence for second degree and he's throwing around allusions to the hate crimes statute.

[Farmer77]

FurthurBB, on 11 April 2012 - 11:11 PM, said:

Well, since the police wanted to charge him too, I don't think there needs to be new evidence.

If the police WANTED to charge him based on evidence this would have happened immediately. In fact I clearly recall an Orlando newspaper quoting the PD as saying there wasn't any evidence to contradict Zimmerman's claims of self defense, therefore they were not going to arrest him.

Hence my previous post that SOMETHING HAS CHANGED....what is it evidence or pressure?

[conspiracybeliever]

bigtroutak, on 11 April 2012 - 11:45 PM, said:

If the police WANTED to charge him based on evidence this would have happened immediately. In fact I clearly recall an Orlando newspaper quoting the PD as saying there wasn't any evidence to contradict Zimmerman's claims of self defense, therefore they were not going to arrest him.

Hence my previous post that SOMETHING HAS CHANGED....what is it evidence or pressure?

Actually if my memory serves me right the police did want to charge him. It was the prosecutor that said no. On the news tonight she said they went over all the evidence and listened to all the recordings.

[Socio]

and then, on 11 April 2012 - 10:09 PM, said:

UPDATE:

Zimmerman in custody, charged with second degree murder.

http://abcnews.go.co...ory?id=16115469

In cases like this they always charge the maximum knowing they won't get it, but creates wiggle room for plea deals. It will most likely end up manslaughter at best, then out in 5-7 years, perhaps much less, would be my guess.

Of course will no doubt be solitary confinement for his own protection.

[susieice]

Ended up double posting somehow. Sorry. Kept one with the link I promised.

Edited by susieice, 12 April 2012 - 12:52 AM.

[susieice]

FurthurBB, on 11 April 2012 - 11:11 PM, said:

Well, since the police wanted to charge him too, I don't think there needs to be new evidence.

Prosecuting Attorney stated those early reports weighted in heavily on her decision to charge. Under the Florida law, they first had to determine if the homicide was justifiable or not before they could determine the charge. Watched it on TV at supper break. Just got home. Will link.
Here's the press conference as I watched it.
http://abclocal.go.c...orld&id=8617035

[F3SS]

Anything interesting ever happen with the panthers and nazis national day of action? Anyone know? I'd guess not since I haven't seen national headlines.

[Socio]

Looks like Zimmerman traded in the two stooges for a real Attorney.

Who Is Mark O'Mara?

Quote

Just one day after his first two lawyers fired him as a client, Trayvon Martin killer George Zimmerman has a new attorney: Orlando lawyer Mark O'Mara.

Quote

O'Mara also commented on the Martin case last month, telling WKMG that the shooting could be legally justified by Florida's Stand Your Ground Law. He also said that, without witnesses, it will come down to Zimmerman's word without any contradictions.

"If you can present evidence or at least your own testimony that (you) felt in fear that he was going to commit great bodily injury or death, that is what kicks in the statutory protection that you're allowed to respond with deadly force," O'Mara said.

[susieice]

They cut off the questions and answers part in the local report and I can't find a link to that part of the speech. Some good questions were asked.

[conspiracybeliever]

Socio, on 12 April 2012 - 12:47 AM, said:

Looks like Zimmerman traded in the two stooges for a real Attorney.

Who Is Mark O'Mara?

And it doesn't matter if you are basically stocking the person when they "attack" you?

[DieChecker]

Quote

second degree murder n. a non-premeditated killing, resulting from an assault in which death of the victim was a distinct possibility. Second degree murder is different from First Degree Murder which is a premeditated, intentional killing, or results from a vicious crime such as arson, rape, or armed robbery. Exact distinctions on degree vary by state.

http://legal-diction...d degree murder

I think to proove murder they will have to show that Zimmerman went into the fight with willingness to use his gun to win. Using his gun to save his life is another situation. Murder is killing on purpose with or without intent. I don't believe Z wanted to kill Trayvon.

A manslaughter charge would have been a lot easier to prosecute.

[susieice]

DieChecker, on 12 April 2012 - 01:17 AM, said:

http://legal-diction...d degree murder

I think to proove murder they will have to show that Zimmerman went into the fight with willingness to use his gun to win. Using his gun to save his life is another situation. Murder is killing on purpose with or without intent. I don't believe Z wanted to kill Trayvon.

A manslaughter charge would have been a lot easier to prosecute.

A second degree charge does not have to show premeditation. First degree does.

[DieChecker]

susieice, on 12 April 2012 - 03:26 AM, said:

A second degree charge does not have to show premeditation. First degree does.

Wanting to kill someone is not premeditation. You can want to kill someone and just spontaneously try and that is 2nd degree murder. If the killing is an accident or otherwise the person did not intend to kill the victim... that is manslaughter.

[Leonardo]

DieChecker, on 12 April 2012 - 04:11 AM, said:

Wanting to kill someone is not premeditation. You can want to kill someone and just spontaneously try and that is 2nd degree murder. If the killing is an accident or otherwise the person did not intend to kill the victim... that is manslaughter.

As previously stated, the exect definitions vary State by State, but your assessment of what constitutes second-degree murder and what constitutes manslaughter are not correct.

In the charge of second-degree murder the accused is aware that death (or another) might be the outcome of a situation, but pursued that situation anyway and intentionally used lethal force in that situation. It can reasonably be argued that, in carrying a lethal weapon into a confrontation with someone he suspected was up to criminal deeds, Zimmerman had to be aware that one possible outcome of that confrontation was the death of Martin.

Manslaughter charges usually involve the death of someone through the intentional application of force not intended to lead to death, and where the foreknowledge that death could be an outcome of a situation cannot be shown to be predictable.

Edited by Leonardo, 12 April 2012 - 06:55 AM.

[and then]

conspiracybeliever, on 12 April 2012 - 01:00 AM, said:

And it doesn't matter if you are basically stocking the person when they "attack" you?

That is the main question as far as I can see.  I've now seen this law explained both ways.  It seems that if you instigate the confrontation (as Z did) the burden of proof for self defense becomes much higher.  But unless there is an eyewitness who disputes the Trayvon on top scenario, then Z can probably sell self defense to an impartial jury.  That is if he can find one anywhere in the US.  There will be a preliminary hearing before a judge who could dismiss the case outright for lack of sufficient evidence.  But that only works for regular, non celebrity, non mob rule cases.  And before there is a misunderstanding, I'm not trying to bait anyone.  It's just that this whole situation ticks me off.  Justice is out the window in this case from the start.  My guess is that there will be sufficient pressure on the Florida judiciary from DoJ that Z is convicted before the jury ever is impaneled.  It won't be obvious in any way that is provable but you can bet Z is done....you can stick a fork in him.....