What does Zimmerman deserve?

[spanky]

I voted "other" because he deserves a fair trial before a jury of his peers who will decide his guilt or innocence first.

Once that is determined, then A or B:

A: Innocent...to go on with his life without interference from the peanut gallery.

B: Guilty...whatever sentence is determined by whichever (Jury or Judge) the laws of Florida give this power to, regardless of our peanut gallery 2-cents.

Don't go out on a limb there...

 

[spanky]

Lying is not a crime, unless your'e under Oath, and then the punishment for perjury is dependent on whether or not your'e a top Obama administration official or just some schlub lying in a local deposition.

He deserves to be acquitted, and then left alone. He deserves to sue the hell out of the media outlets that convicted him before there was a trial, the same media outlets that should be held responsible for any civil unrest whe he gets set free.

This trial is a reflection of the mental capacity of so many Americans. So easily manipulated, so susceptable to hyperbole and empty charges from a subjective source.

Children. It's the mindset of children. I swear when I see a grown man wearing a Transformer T-Shirt or a Grown Woman with a collection of stuffed toys I'm reminded of the devolving mental capacity of this Country.

To believe Zimmerman is a cold blooded lying murderer that killed a " Beutiful Innocent Angel Child " you would have had to buy into 100% of the Bull Sh** that came out of the media as they posted pics of Martin when he was 12 and pics of Zimmerman when he was dressed in his prison oranges

I'm sorry, the answer was too weird to make much out of.

 

[Captain Adverse]

Don't go out on a limb there...

My point was it is not up to anyone outside that courtroom to determine what a defendant "deserves."

If you're not on the jury, then your opinion is irrelevent.

I am sick and tired of people trying defendants in the "Court of Public Opinion."

 

[spanky]

My point was it is not up to anyone outside that courtroom to determine what a defendant "deserves."

If you're not on the jury, then your opinion is irrelevent.

I am sick and tired of people trying defendants in the "Court of Public Opinion."

Thanks for clearing that up.

 

[SMTA]

Talk about lack of valued input......

 

[Josie]

Don't go out on a limb there...

What's your vote, spanky?

 

[apdst]

...to walk, with the court's apologies, monetary compensation from the state for wasting his time and wrongfully charging him.

Then, he can move on to filing nice, fat lawsuits against all the loud mouth bastards that saw fit to persecute him in print, endangered his life by releasing his private information, denied his his constitutional right to due process and especially those who publically threatened his life. If I was his lawyer, I would retire on all the money I would make off those clowns.

But, unfortunately, that's not what's going to happen, since the decision was made to see him do time, even before the courtroom doors opened.

 

[Lutherf]

I noticed that Trayvon's parents got a civil rights attorney for this case.

Of course. If the criminal complaint doesn't go their way they need to have someone on board for the civil suit.

 

[nota bene]

My point was it is not up to anyone outside that courtroom to determine what a defendant "deserves."

If you're not on the jury, then your opinion is irrelevent.

I am sick and tired of people trying defendants in the "Court of Public Opinion."

And yet we're human, and this is what we do.

The defense hasn't even presented its case, so I haven't voted in this poll.

But I'm sorry there isn't at least one man on the jury. This is not because I don't think the women will do an honorable, thoughtful job; it's because a woman's enculturated understanding and responses are, generally, coming from a little different perspective than a man's.

Not one person on the jury understands what it's like to be a man and to face this particular situation.

 

[Juanita]

What sentence would you give him?

Yes, I know it's not over yet. From what you know already...... vote.

10-20-out in 7-8---I'm banking on a conviction of aggravated manslaughter on a minor with a firearm......

 

[Mustachio]

I didn't play games with the guy and everything worked out just fine. Trayvon didn't do that and he paid the price.

Since Zimmerman hasn't taken the stand and probably won't the only testimony we have is what he told Serino. According to that testimony Trayvon was standing in a weird place (not on a sidewalk) and looking at a house that was right next to two others that had been broken in to. He wasn't trying to get out of the rain. That struck Zimmerman as weird and I certainly can't fault that kind of thinking.

Well, I wouldn't have done what Trayvon did, either. But I have to admit that if a friend told me that a guy was following him around, then got out of his car to approach him - without identifying himself, for some reason - and he socked the guy, I wouldn't blame him. I don't agree with violence, but this is a case where two individuals acted stupidly and the only difference between them was that one was going to kill the other. And what if Trayvon had rushed at Zimmerman, and then was shot? What if Trayvon reached into his pocket to get his cell phone and Zimmerman shot him? The way some arguments go, in both scenarios the "defensive shot" would have been justified. I don't think we should encourage trigger happy stupidity, that's all I'm saying. Some people have argued that Trayvon would have killed Zimmerman, but I think it's a ridiculous notion. A 17 year old going home to watch the end of a basketball game decides to kill somebody with people watching in the middle of a neighborhood? I don't think so, at least.

I don't think a guy standing in the rain is suspicious, but if a person is paranoid enough to think so, let the police handle it. The very least we can get out of this situation is a big reminder not to take the law into your own hands when it isn't absolutely necessary (or in the case, even remotely necessary).

 

[E_Pluribus_Venom]

he deserves to the spend the rest of his days free, in constant fear & paranoia.

 

[Lutherf]

Well, I wouldn't have done what Trayvon did, either. But I have to admit that if a friend told me that a guy was following him around, then got out of his car to approach him - without identifying himself, for some reason - and he socked the guy, I wouldn't blame him. I don't agree with violence, but this is a case where two individuals acted stupidly and the only difference between them was that one was going to kill the other. And what if Trayvon had rushed at Zimmerman, and then was shot? What if Trayvon reached into his pocket to get his cell phone and Zimmerman shot him? The way some arguments go, in both scenarios the "defensive shot" would have been justified. I don't think we should encourage trigger happy stupidity, that's all I'm saying. Some people have argued that Trayvon would have killed Zimmerman, but I think it's a ridiculous notion. A 17 year old going home to watch the end of a basketball game decides to kill somebody with people watching in the middle of a neighborhood? I don't think so, at least.

I don't think a guy standing in the rain is suspicious, but if a person is paranoid enough to think so, let the police handle it. The very least we can get out of this situation is a big reminder not to take the law into your own hands when it isn't absolutely necessary (or in the case, even remotely necessary).

Neither of those things happened. There was a fight that went on for at least a minute and probably longer. Zimemrman has the dents and bruises to prove it. If some guy is pummeling me and won't stop then I might just shoot him too.

If Trayvon was going to go back home and watch the game then he did a really, really bad job of it.

 

[Seabeacon]

Of course. If the criminal complaint doesn't go their way they need to have someone on board for the civil suit.

:doh I see this can of worms opening up.

 

[Crosscheck]

I've actually seen people online say he deserves the death penalty. Either they aren't watching the trial or they are, but they're incredibly ignorant.

What gives you the right to call others who may have a different opinion than you ignorant? In your high and mighty role you believe if others see something differently they must be ignorant?

That is strong labeling to be used on someone. But perhaps you are indeed that wise. You should enlightent us of your accomplishments in this world to allow you to be this wise.

 

[Josie]

What gives you the right to call others who may have a different opinion than you ignorant? In your high and mighty role you believe if others see something differently they must be ignorant?

That is strong labeling to be used on someone. But perhaps you are indeed that wise. You should enlightent us of your accomplishments in this world to allow you to be this wise.

Oh, c'mon Crosscheck. There are no lawyers, judges, laypersons....NO ONE.... who is watching this trial closely is saying he deserves the death penalty. These people are just over-exaggerating things in their minds because they believe he's a cold-blooded, racist killer. Nothing in the trial has proven that. Therefore, it's just a conspiracy theory and, therefore, ignorant.

 

[niff]

A gold medal.
The 'T-Boners' here should know how many young Black men George has prevented from attacking a stranger at night in the rain and being shot for their trouble. George ought to be given the Noble Prize for saving lives.

 

[spanky]

What's your vote, spanky?

How did I vote? I was response #3 on your thread.

I don't usually cast a vote in public polls, I don't understand the purpose of them.

 

[SMTA]

For those who are clueless:

Poll
 
[pohl] noun
1. a sampling or collection of opinions on a subject, taken from either a selected or a random group of persons, as for the purpose of analysis.

2. Usually, polls. the place where votes are taken.
3. the registering of votes, as at an election.
4. the voting at an election.
5. the number of votes cast.

 

[Oceandan]

According to the applicable Florida LAW and the evidence presented to date, he has committed no crime thus deserves no jail time.

Many have demonstrated their bias by saying it's just wrong. He deserves to be jailed for "something". That's fine. One can even disagree with George's actions based on personal bias. That's fine too.

There is no crime. No jail time.

 

[Zyphlin]

Moderator's Warning:

Let's stick to the topic people and not the value of each others opinions to this thread

 

[Zyphlin]

Right now, I can't really see a case to convict him of anything. Had the state tried to focus on proving Manslaughter beyond a reasonable doubt I think they may've been able to make the case. But they focused on Murder 2, and failed to make that case and in the process didn't put a compelling case together for the lesser offense either.

 

[grip]

Right now, I can't really see a case to convict him of anything. Had the state tried to focus on proving Manslaughter beyond a reasonable doubt I think they may've been able to make the case. But they focused on Murder 2, and failed to make that case and in the process didn't put a compelling case together for the lesser offense either.

This is exactly right but you know the jury is thinking about the reaction to an acquittal? It's possible for this reason and the fact that the amount of force to repel the attack wasn't proven to be necessary he might get manslaughter, 5yrs with time served and possibly 2-3 yrs off with good behavior. SYG may not be considered to heavily if they think Z had any responsibility in provoking the attack.

 

[Oceandan]

Right now, I can't really see a case to convict him of anything. Had the state tried to focus on proving Manslaughter beyond a reasonable doubt I think they may've been able to make the case. But they focused on Murder 2, and failed to make that case and in the process didn't put a compelling case together for the lesser offense either.

Upon what factual basis do you construct this statement?

The crime of Manslaughter can be committed in one of three ways, either by:

Manslaughter by Act (Voluntary Manslaughter): Committing an act that was neither excusable, nor justified that resulted in the death of another person.
Manslaughter by Procurement (Voluntary Manslaughter): Persuading, inducing, or encouraging another person to commit an act that resulted in the death of another person.
Manslaughter by Culpable Negligence (Involuntary Manslaughter): Engaging in “Culpably Negligent” conduct that resulted in the death of another person.

By what facts of this case do you say the state "may've been able to make the case"?

 

[haymarket]

The guy went out armed and followed a kid. He engaged in racial profiling. They got into a fight and he killed the kid - who was unarmed. Something is really wrong with a law when that can happen and this guy walks away. And walk he will. He will get no jail time because he will not be convicted.

Z probably saw way too many Bronson DEATH WISH films. An apparently so has lots of America as well.