Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Too Hot for Swamp Gas' started by DaveFla, Jul 1, 2013.
What's the likelihood GZ gets charged with something to avoid riots?
terrible to even think that, the system will be packed full of dead bodies from all the stand your ground people trying to protect themselves because of some stupid ignorant people.
seriously, think about it! I think that Z is guilty of Manslaughter and should serve time. However the media blitz had him guilty of murder since day one when they saw a jewish name killing a young black man.
Well, it's very unlikely Zimmerman can be charged with something by Florida in this matter for double jeopardy reasons. I can't think of what would meet the test, anyway. Now, the United States could charge him for a crime... but do they have one? I mean, they could throw a hate crime homicide against the wall purely gratuitously, but there isn't going to be evidence to support it, it would be malicious prosecution.
Or it could have been because GZ's parents were on the defense' witness list.
From what I heard today Z is guilty of nothing. During one of the police interviews he can be heard saying he prays there is video evidence of the incidence. Everything I've heard indicates he was defending himself, especially once TM saw his gun and went for it, saying you are going to die tonight. This case is both tragic and absolute BS.
Excellent illustration, Tai.
Related to that, I heard an argument on Fox, Friday I think it was, where a former prosecutor was arguing that GZ's statement to witnesses that "he was beating me up and I had to shoot him," or whatever precise words GZ used to that effect, were insufficient to avail him of the deadly force defense.
She argued that because GZ did not pop up and immediately say, "he was trying to kill me and I had to shoot him," that would weaken the defense argument that GZ felt that he was in a life-threatening situation, which according to her, was necessary to justify the deadly use of force.
I don't think there is much juice in that argument, nor do I think that GZ was required make a statement articulating the law of deadly force to the letter while in an excited, emotional, probably still fearful, and upset state of mind. At worse, it can simply be explained that people who have been involved and injured in a substantial fight where they legitimately felt their life was threatened - and who had to take extraordinary actions to defend their personal safety - don't always speak clearly immediately afterwards and may not be able to recite the elements of the use of deadly force.
GZ's inconsistencies in his statements are being exposed. It's not looking good for GZ.
I'll bet that question was fun to ask.
Lay folks who have never had the pleasure, often get all kind of cognitive dissonance wires crossed and sparking when they discover that indeed, police LIE to folks that they interview.
Think you could bring me a small pouch of fairy dust when you return from Fantasyland? I'll pay good money.
If that's the best thing you can say for the prosecution at this point, that the defendant made inconsistent statements, if that is the body of proof beyond a reasonable doubt of malice aforethought and that he did not act in self-defense... best brush up on the phrase "directed verdict of acquittal", because it'll blow your mind.
Some hyperbole to that, I think in this high profile a case a judge is going to let the jury speak regardless... but don't go to sleep on the possibility of JNOV, either.
Well, not only that they do, but gradually realizing that it's more or less an expectation.
You must live in a galaxy far far away, and I ain't talking physically here pal.
I'm sure the jury will do that when GZ is found guilty of manslaughter.
And what proof beyond a reasonable doubt supports a manslaughter conviction? Again, the inconsistent statements? That's it?
I wouldn't get my hopes up too high. I came into this case thinking that they should have a trial to sort out the facts and that he may well have committed a crime.
With the case the prosecution has put on so far, just avoiding a judgment of acquittal at the close of States' evidence may be an accomplishment.
He is being charged with murder, not manslaughter. As others have pointed out, it is not clear if he can be convicted of a lessor charge like manslaughter, since he has not been charged that.
And we note the obvious deflection.
chomp, just a quick bit of advice. When it is clear you are wrong about something, it is better to admit your mistake and move on.
If the judge wants to take in consideration of the jurors who will b faced with a decision that must be made with more than just the facts on their mind,the case could be dismissed.
The verdict should be made based on facts , but with all the comments made by outside sources and the reality of what may possibly happen in the event of an aquittal, it only stands to reason that it has to be in the back of the jurors mind.
I'm watching now. You know, the more I hear in this the more I come to the conclusion that both men behaved poorly on that night. Clearly, there is a reason GZ failed to get into the police academy and that reason stands before us. HE should not be patrolling the neighborhood armed. That he did, set these events in motion. (That doesn't mean that everyone should be bound by this, just GZ specifically, who specifically did not have the makeup to be in that situation).
However, TM also acted poorly on that night. Certainly, going back to confront GZ was within his rights and if GZ initiated a fight (which I do not believe at this moment), then he had a right to defend himself and win. But he did not have to go back. He chose to go back and that bad decision made a bad situation worse. I would hope my child's first move in that situation is to call and/or get their ass home ASAP and WE will confront the follower.
Not trying to make a specific point about the trial than the fact that this looks like one of those deals that's just screwed up all the way around.