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

[Cajuncowboy]

Doesn't look official to me. Anyone could've typed that up in MS Word.

Fine...Follow along if you like.

http://www.orlandosentinel.com/vide...e-Zimmerman-911-call-reporting-Trayvon-Martin

 

[Reality]

*** One and ONLY Warning About this Thread! ***

The staff allowed the original thread about this topic to continue for several days because most of the users stayed on topic and avoided personal attacks and insults. It was because of this that the staff again started a new thread to discuss this topic since there has been an arrest.

Whether you believe the accused is innocent, guilty or in-between, we remind you that personal attacks, insults and other derogatory comments directed at other users will not be allowed.

If you do not respect these rules or do not respect the users you are debating with, then do not post in this thread!

You are free to vigorously debate your opinions and beliefs as much as you want, but if you attack other users, your access to this forum will be removed!

#reality

 

[casmith07]

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.

Showing how the crime was committed is part of your case in proving it happened.

There isn't a requirement to show how it happened. If your case is "he shot him" and the jury believes it beyond a reasonable doubt, technically it's case closed.

I haven't heard of anything like that happening in a long time though. You'd have to go way back to when the country had separate statutes for slaves/blacks.

 

[TheCount]

For those actually interested in the 911 call transcript it is here.

http://www.documentcloud.org/documents/326700-full-transcript-zimmerman.html

We've all been over this thing a million times. You guys are arguing something that has already been argued to exhaustion on this very forum.

At least Casmith is bringing into the conversation the current charge, I think we are beyond griping over 911 tapes and the significance of hoodies.

He's being charged with the correct crime and now the trial comes, I don't see the point is talking black vs white at this point. They didn't charge him with a hate crime, move on.

 

[Cajuncowboy]

Showing how the crime was committed is part of your case in proving it happened.

There isn't a requirement to show how it happened. If your case is "he shot him" and the jury believes it beyond a reasonable doubt, technically it's case closed.

I haven't heard of anything like that happening in a long time though. You'd have to go way back to when the country had separate statutes for slaves/blacks.

There is no way that just saying "He shot him" is enough to prove a case of murder in the second degree. Especially with the circumstances surrounding this case. The defense is it was self defense. He has already admitted to shooting him. To say case closed just based on that is irresponsible.

 

[casmith07]

We've all been over this thing a million times. You guys are arguing something that has already been argued to exhaustion on this very forum.

At least Casmith is bringing into the conversation the current charge, I think we are beyond griping over 911 tapes and the significance of hoodies.

He's being charged with the correct crime and now the trial comes, I don't see the point is talking black vs white at this point. They didn't charge him with a hate crime, move on.

As a student having taken a smorgasbord of classes about criminal law, spending a lot of my free time reading criminal cases for fun, and being a future prosecutor, all I'm trying to do, as I've always done, is help people understand the basics of the law so that all of the make believe law doesn't go flying around.

 

[The30YardSlant]

I didn't. You did. But nice try.

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

Murder/crime/breaking and entering. Same thing.

You started us down this path, I just drew it out to it's illogical conclusion.

You presented the idea that all the prosecution must do is prove that a crime occured and someone can be convicted of murder, when in reality they have to prove that MURDER occured. Yes, Zimmerman may be guilty of a crime. Proving that alone will not convict him.

 

[casmith07]

There is no way that just saying "He shot him" is enough to prove a case of murder in the second degree. Especially with the circumstances surrounding this case. The defense is it was self defense. He has already admitted to shooting him. To say case closed just based on that is irresponsible.

I didn't say that it was - I'm merely explaining the process for you.

 

[Cajuncowboy]

We've all been over this thing a million times. You guys are arguing something that has already been argued to exhaustion on this very forum.

At least Casmith is bringing into the conversation the current charge, I think we are beyond griping over 911 tapes and the significance of hoodies.

He's being charged with the correct crime and now the trial comes, I don't see the point is talking black vs white at this point. They didn't charge him with a hate crime, move on.

Well, race was brought up in this thread and even one of the moderators here said it was a factor so I was just bringing more evidence to the discussion. And a hate crime is far different than a race related crime.

 

[casmith07]

You started us down this path, I just drew it out to it's illogical conclusion.

You presented the idea that all the prosecution must do is prove that a crime occured and someone can be convicted of murder, when in reality they have to prove that MURDER occured. Yes, Zimmerman may be guilty of a crime. Proving that alone will not convict him.

You're picking one word out of my use of general language to explain the basics of the criminal justice system.

The crime could be grand larceny, it doesn't change the burden of proof for the government in proving that <insert crime> was committed.

Better? Or shall I post pictures and diagrams?

 

[Cajuncowboy]

I didn't say that it was - I'm merely explaining the process for you.

Are you telling me you didn't just say in the previous post that all they had to do was prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he was shot and it would be case closed?

You didn't say that?

 

[Cajuncowboy]

Showing how the crime was committed is part of your case in proving it happened.

There isn't a requirement to show how it happened. If your case is "he shot him" and the jury believes it beyond a reasonable doubt, technically it's case closed.

I haven't heard of anything like that happening in a long time though. You'd have to go way back to when the country had separate statutes for slaves/blacks.

Again, your post, not mine.

 

[casmith07]

Again, your post, not mine.

Sorry, next time I'll make sure I add

HYPOTHETICAL ONLY

before I post something.

 

[Cajuncowboy]

Sorry, next time I'll make sure I add

HYPOTHETICAL ONLY

before I post something.

This is how you would argue a case? Holy crap! You get caught with your own words and now it's just hypothetical as if it really doesn't mean anything.

Whether it is hypothetical or not, that is what you posted.

 

[Cowboys&LakersFan]

Great news.

 

[casmith07]

This is how you would argue a case? Holy crap! You get caught with your own words and now it's just hypothetical as if it really doesn't mean anything.

Whether it is hypothetical or not, that is what you posted.

I wasn't am I still am not arguing with you.

I'm just trying to clarify the process. And now I'm going to sleep.

 

[Cajuncowboy]

I wasn't am I still am not arguing with you.

I'm just trying to clarify the process. And now I'm going to sleep.

Who's arguing. Just pointing out your inconstant statements. You didn't clarify anything. Actually you just made it muddier.

And with that, good night.

 

[JonJon]

Well it's about time.

 

[Romo_To_Dez]

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.

Zimmerman said that he was a Black Male right? What caused him to call in the first place was it because Trayvon was Black?

I don't know about Zimmerman but if you watched the interviews of his Neighbor friend Frank, then Frank seems very focused on "Young Black Males" committing robberies and has brought it up multiple times in interviews time and time again bringing up Young Black Males.


He seems to be using this as a way to defend Zimmerman thinking that Trayvon as up to no good. So if Zimmerman had the same focus and obsession with Black Males as Frank did then to me that' s profiling.


His friend should not be talking so much about what other Black Males may have done as a way to justify GZ seeing Trayvon as up to no good.

 

[StevenOtero]

http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/ne...rge-zimmerman-911-call-manipulated-nbc-309258

In the original 911 call, Zimmerman is heard describing Martin as such: &#8220;This guy looks like he&#8217;s up to no good. Or he&#8217;s on drugs or something. It&#8217;s raining and he&#8217;s just walking around, looking about.&#8221;

The dispatcher then asks: &#8220;OK, and this guy &#8211; is he white, black or Hispanic?&#8221;

&#8220;He looks black,&#8221; Zimmerman responds.

The version NBC ran, though, was much shorter and did not include the question posed by the 911 operator.

&#8220;This guy looks like he&#8217;s up to no good. He looks black,&#8221; Zimmerman is heard saying in NBC&#8217;s edited version.

The difference is significant, since activists have been claiming that Zimmerman had racially profiled Martin. Critics have argued that NBC set out to purposely advance that narrative by condensing the 911 tape to make it appear that Zimmerman&#8217;s motivation for assuming Martin was &#8220;up to no good&#8221; was based on his skin color.