George Zimmerman charged with 2nd degree murder of Trayvon Martin **Read Post #142**

casmith07;4503268 said:
HeyZeus semantics! Murder/crime/breaking and entering. Same thing.

And if you had any legal training and could understand the language in the statute I posted on page 1, you would know that proving murder 2 is not that difficult here. The wild card is the jury.

Then let's be glad that they didnt decide to charge Joe Blow who was robbing the 7/11 down the street that evening with Trayvon's murder. The convenience store tapes would damn that guy to life.
 
The30YardSlant;4503285 said:
Then let's be glad that they didnt decide to charge Joe Blow who was robbing the 7/11 down the street that evening with Trayvon's murder. The convenience store tapes would damn that guy to life.

This doesn't make any sense to me.
 
Manwiththeplan;4503273 said:
You're clearly reading what you want to read. No one here is saying he wanted to kill Martin cause he was black. What has been said over and over again, is he precieved a threat because he was Black. And because of this precieved threat he took actions that lead to the death of an unarmed person.

So you don't think if the guy was white or Hispanic, he would have perceived the actions of Martin as threatening? And again, who's to say that he didn't actually shot in self defense? How do you think Zimmerman got the cuts on the back of his head?

He may have thought he was a threat due to his actions and followed him, against the advice of the 911 operator, but that doesn't mean he thought he was a threat because he was black. The funny thing about this is that NO ONE, including you, me or anyone else on this board or quote possibly even the police at this point, knows what really happened.

He said he got into a confrontation with Martin. The 911 call clearly shows that Martin did approach Zimmerman first when he was in his car.

Now one telling thing on the tape is that Zimmerman is heard saying under his breath, "They always get away." That is open to conjecture as to whether he means black people always get away. Or just people who break into houses always get away. He does say at the beginning of the tape that there had been a rash of break ins in the neighborhood.

So, I am not reading what I want to read. I am reading whatever facts are out there. Not just what NBC and their doctored tape wants me to hear.
 
casmith07;4503256 said:
Wrong. The burden of proof beyond a reasonable doubt rests with the defense on claims of NGI or self-defense.

The only burden of proof for the government is to prove that the crime was committed.

yeah I'm not a lawyer, but I've always thought this was the case or else everyone would claim insanity or self defense.
 
casmith07;4503286 said:
This doesn't make any sense to me.

I've been led to believe that all one must do is prove that a crime occured and his conviction is guranteed.

I'm sure someone was drinking underaged in the vicinity as well that night, might want to charge him too. Should be easy enough to connect the dots.
 
Romo_To_Dez;4503280 said:
Does race have anything to do with it? I don't know. But Zimmerman's Neighbor defending him keeps mentioning that there were eight robberies all by Black Young Men. Even though there weren't arrests and convictions and all cases so maybe the Neighbor assumes that it was all Black Males because one or two might have been caught.


The Neighbor seems to use these robberies as a way to justify GZ seeing Trayvon as "Suspicious" and calling 911 on him and following him. Now I don't know how he can say that Zimmerman was not profiling but at the same time use his assumptions that all robberies were commited by Black Males as a way to justify or defend why Zimmerman would see Trayvon as up to no good.

Because if Zimmerman did just call because of what he assumes others did and automatically assumed that Trayvon was going to do the same thing than that is profiling to me.

Zimmerman never mentioned race until the 911 operator asked him what he looked like. As a matter of fact, he told him he was wearing a hoodie so he didn't even know for sure if he was black.
 
casmith07;4503256 said:
Wrong. The burden of proof beyond a reasonable doubt rests with the defense on claims of NGI or self-defense.

The only burden of proof for the government is to prove that the crime was committed.

They have to prove how the crime was committed and also they would like to prove motive as well.
 
gmoney112;4503250 said:
You mean besides actively patrolling his neighborhood with a firearm and then murdering an unarmed civilian? Yeah. Not murder. He should get a invitation to the White House.

Do you even know what "murder" means?
 
Manwiththeplan;4503289 said:
yeah I'm not a lawyer, but I've always thought this was the case or else everyone would claim insanity or self defense.

Bingo.

Self-defense also requires that you meet force with force, with deadly force being the only recourse that you could use in order to prevent was an equal or greater crime against yourself.

Florida's Supreme Court has held that even a knife is not deadly force, and have also held that an accidental discharge of a firearm used in a pistol-whipping is not sufficient for self-defense.

The self-defense claim is going to be tough to prove.
 
Cajuncowboy;4503295 said:
They have to prove how the crime was committed and also they would like to prove motive as well.

2nd degree murder doesn't have a motive or premeditation requirement.
 
The30YardSlant;4503291 said:
I've been led to believe that all one must do is prove that a crime occured and his conviction is guranteed.

I'm sure someone was drinking underaged in the vicinity as well that night, might want to charge him too. Should be easy enough to connect the dots.

Totally implausible and irrelevant to the topic at hand.
 
Cajuncowboy;4503295 said:
They have to prove how the crime was committed and also they would like to prove motive as well.

I'm pretty sure 2nd degree murder requires no premeditation, however the circumstances prior to and during the act do require addressing.

Regardless of whether or not he acted in self-defense, the prosecution still has to prove the crime committed was murder.
 
casmith07;4503301 said:
2nd degree murder doesn't have a motive or premeditation requirement.

But they do have to show how the crime was committed , right? I mean they don't just say "Hey, we know this guy was shot. We don't know how but this guy is guilty so there." do they?
 
Cajuncowboy;4503307 said:
But they do have to show how the crime was committed , right? I mean they don't just say "Hey, we know this guy was shot. We don't know how but this guy is guilty so there." do they?

Absolutely...that's the basis of the justice system. Proof beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant committed the crime in question.

Everyone already knew that, I thought?
 
casmith07;4503310 said:
Absolutely...that's the basis of the justice system. Proof beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant committed the crime in question.

Everyone already knew that, I thought?

No, you said all they had to do was prove a crime was committed. I said they had to show HOW the crime was committed.
 
casmith07;4503256 said:
Wrong. The burden of proof beyond a reasonable doubt rests with the defense on claims of NGI or self-defense.

The only burden of proof for the government is to prove that the crime was committed.

Here is your quote....
 

Staff online

Latest posts

Forum statistics

Threads
464,096
Messages
13,788,579
Members
23,772
Latest member
BAC2662
Back
Top