• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Verdict Predictions

The verdict will be....

  • Total voters
    46
  • Poll closed .
CalGun said:
Well I'd have to chime in with the liberals favorite mantra: "Bush Did It" only they'd be talking about Bush Sr. for what his DOJ did to the officers after they were acquitted in the Rodney King beating.
Click to expand...

I was going to bring up Bush 41, to the best of my knowledge it was G.H. Bush who was the first President to ignored the Constitution and used double jeopardy to prosecute those LAPD officers after they were acquitted for attempted murder.

The uninformed weren't aware that those LAPD officers saved that CS punks life. If they didn't show up when they did, that female CHP officer was just about to draw her .357 Mag. service revolver and blow that punk away.
 
Mothers judging the killer of an innocent minor child...
2nd degree murder? Probably not...
Manslaughter? For sure.
 
Oceandan said:
Voluntary manslaughter describes a homicide intentionally committed while in the midst of a provocation. The prosecutor must show a sudden, unexpected event or circumstance serving as a provocation. As a result of the provocation, the defendant must have felt a temporary anger, heat of passion, or emotion that immediately resulted in an intent to kill or an intent to commit the act that resulted in the victim's death.
Click to expand...
Now, you see, that's a very useful definition to quote. That just about sums up what I've understood from the trial to have happened. The sudden, unexpected event was when TM confronted GZ for following him. GZ felt temporary anger and fear (the "emotion" referred to) and shot TM.

I think GZ was guilty of voluntary manslaughter, however the prosecution seems to have been inept and I wouldn't be surprised to see GZ acquitted of all charges.

Cue civil action.
 
Andalublue said:
Now, you see, that's a very useful definition to quote. That just about sums up what I've understood from the trial to have happened. The sudden, unexpected event was when TM confronted GZ for following him. GZ felt temporary anger and fear (the "emotion" referred to) and shot TM.

I think GZ was guilty of voluntary manslaughter, however the prosecution seems to have been inept and I wouldn't be surprised to see GZ acquitted of all charges.

Cue civil action.
Click to expand...

Nice twist and I see the "logic", however, at the TIME of the shooting, GZ was not in control the the situation. Unless of course you discount both the prosecution's witness and the defense's witness who testified TM was on top of GZ when the shot was fired. This would NOT support manslaughter but WOULD support self defense. GZ did not shoot TM upon having his nose broken. Remember you must overcome John Goode's eye witness testimony of TM on top administering an "MMA style ground and pound".

Are you arguing the "sudden, unexpected event" occurred somewhere after the initial confrontation?? I mean GZ waited til he took a good beating to have the sudden unexpected "temporary" anger??
 
Fisher said:
Yes but I do not know if the judge can suspend part or all of it. I know in my state, the appellate courts have never said they cannot so judges do it. So if the case were here with a 9 1/2 year min. like in FL the judge could impose it and then suspend it on whatever conditions the Court wanted to apply. It usually happens in serious cases when there is a lot of mitigation or the judge just doesn't think the person is a real danger to others. I've known it to happen in a DUI manslaughter case where it would have been a MM of at least 3.5 years I think but the victim's family asked the Court not to give the defendant driver any time. The judge gave him the max he could so that he could do work release which was like 4 or 6 months. I forget now. I am not in FL though.
Click to expand...

thanks
 
Unitedwestand13 said:
i personally think the verdict may surprise some of us, and at least cause one or both sides to become outraged.
Click to expand...

That is the understatement. With the jury verdict it is a pretty accurate prediction that one side of this argument is going to be gnashing their teeth. You will hate the jury of six women or you will love them to death. I don't think there is any middle ground.

With the end of this trial many here are going to have a big hole in their daily lives.
 
Mr. E said:
Murder 2 was only charged because the prosecution hoped Zimmerman would plead rather than risk a trial. This tactic is sadly employed in all 50 states (more because of budgets then over zealous prosecutors). Especially because the jury can later be instructed of lesser charges.

Personally, from what I've observed and basing my opinion on WA law (I'm more familiar with) the prosecution has failed to meet their burden and any guilty verdict (with evidence given so far) would easily be over turned on appeal. I believe the jury will find him not guilty (unless the over sensationalist media has gotten to them).
Click to expand...

I think M2 was a mistake.

It is common practise to overcharge, but I think if they had gone with manslaughter from the gate they could have made a good case.

Not guilty, maybe hung.
 
Crosscheck said:
That is the understatement. With the jury verdict it is a pretty accurate prediction that one side of this argument is going to be gnashing their teeth. You will hate the jury of six women or you will love them to death. I don't think there is any middle ground.

With the end of this trial many here are going to have a big hole in their daily lives.
Click to expand...

I've already heard people saying things like "Well, you know the jury is going to say not guilty because there are no black people on there." *headdesk*
 
Josie said:
I've already heard people saying things like "Well, you know the jury is going to say not guilty because there are no black people on there." *headdesk*
Click to expand...

Trust me, there are people who have their excuses lined up and ready to fire at the verdict's reading.
 
After some thought, I see the the jury "settling" for manslaughter as a compromise so they can live their lives without being hunted down and killed by local thugs afterward.
 
Erod said:
After some thought, I see the the jury "settling" for manslaughter as a compromise so they can live their lives without being hunted down and killed by local thugs afterward.
Click to expand...

But............................ do they know about the crazy "I'm gonna riot and kill a bunch of whities!" idiots?
 
Based on the trial, I would have to say Not Guilty personally. However, with how emotionally charged this is, I can see a good shot that it ends up with manslaughter even though the state didn't give a very appealing case for it since they were focused so hard on the murder charge.
 
Erod said:
After some thought, I see the the jury "settling" for manslaughter as a compromise so they can live their lives without being hunted down and killed by local thugs afterward.
Click to expand...

While totally unjust I think that's certainly a likely outcome.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom