- Joined
- Aug 27, 2005
- Messages
- 43,602
- Reaction score
- 26,256
- Location
- Houston, TX
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Conservative
SANFORD, Florida (Reuters) - Jurors in the second-degree murder trial of George Zimmerman may also consider convicting him of the lesser charge of manslaughter in the shooting death of unarmed black teenager Trayvon Martin, a judge ruled on Thursday.
Oh gee. Another person who doesn't have the evidence correct.OK, this makes sense, since it never seemed to me that Zimmerman was guilty of murder. His recklessness in following Martin, after being instructed not to by the police, definitely fits the crime. My prediction? Guilty.
On another note - The jury is allowed to consider aggravated assault. Doesn't make sense to me, since nobody knows who started the altercation. My prediction? Not guilty. The judge, at this time, is considering allowing the jury to also consider third degree murder, in that Zimmerman supposedly committed child abuse when he went after Martin. This one is laughable, and if allowed by the judge, my prediction on that will be not guilty.
So here we go.... Summary of my predictions:
Second degree murder - Not guilty
Third degree murder (if allowed for consideration) - Not guilty
Manslaughter - Guilty
Aggravated assault - Not guilty
Article is here.
OK, this makes sense, since it never seemed to me that Zimmerman was guilty of murder. His recklessness in following Martin, after being instructed not to by the police, definitely fits the crime. My prediction? Guilty.
On another note - The jury is allowed to consider aggravated assault. Doesn't make sense to me, since nobody knows who started the altercation. My prediction? Not guilty. The judge, at this time, is considering allowing the jury to also consider third degree murder, in that Zimmerman supposedly committed child abuse when he went after Martin. This one is laughable, and if allowed by the judge, my prediction on that will be not guilty.
So here we go.... Summary of my predictions:
Second degree murder - Not guilty
Third degree murder (if allowed for consideration) - Not guilty
Manslaughter - Guilty
Aggravated assault - Not guilty
Article is here.
He just wants him to be found guilty of something, because many feel guilty about not finding Z guilty of something.
I have said from the very beginning that Zimmerman did not deserve a charge of murder, but have maintained that manslaughter would be the proper conviction, due to Zimmerman's recklessness, which resulted in the altercation that led to Martin's death. However, the prosecutor wants to win, as does the defense lawyer. Neither has scruples.
I have said from the very beginning that Zimmerman did not deserve a charge of murder, but have maintained that manslaughter would be the proper conviction, due to Zimmerman's recklessness, which resulted in the altercation that led to Martin's death. However, the prosecutor wants to win, as does the defense lawyer. Neither has scruples.
And that is a false narrative.due to Zimmerman's recklessness, which resulted in the altercation that led to Martin's death.
you continue to apply things that aren't the law. following someone is a right, practing your rights is not something that should be considered reckless.
OK, this makes sense, since it never seemed to me that Zimmerman was guilty of murder. His recklessness in following Martin, after being instructed not to by the police, definitely fits the crime. My prediction? Guilty.
On another note - The jury is allowed to consider aggravated assault. Doesn't make sense to me, since nobody knows who started the altercation. My prediction? Not guilty. The judge, at this time, is considering allowing the jury to also consider third degree murder, in that Zimmerman supposedly committed child abuse when he went after Martin. This one is laughable, and if allowed by the judge, my prediction on that will be not guilty.
So here we go.... Summary of my predictions:
Second degree murder - Not guilty
Third degree murder (if allowed for consideration) - Not guilty
Manslaughter - Guilty
Aggravated assault - Not guilty
Article is here.
I also have a right to wear my Rolex and fancy clothes and hide multiple firearms under my jacket and act drunk and stagger around in bad neighborhoods. Soon as someone approachs me and tries to steal my Rolex, I shoot them, right? It is my right you know. This case has stretched reasonableness so far out of...It is just weird the arguments you hear for Z. Z at some point during that night made a decision that got a minor killed. Without question he killed an unarmed minor, yet some think even having a trial is outrageous.
I also have a right to wear my Rolex and fancy clothes and hide multiple firearms under my jacket and act drunk and stagger around in bad neighborhoods. Soon as someone approachs me and tries to steal my Rolex, I shoot them, right? It is my right you know. This case has stretched reasonableness so far out of...It is just weird the arguments you hear for Z. Z at some point during that night made a decision that got a minor killed. Without question he killed an unarmed minor, yet some think even having a trial is outrageous.
I have said from the very beginning that Zimmerman did not deserve a charge of murder, but have maintained that manslaughter would be the proper conviction, due to Zimmerman's recklessness, which resulted in the altercation that led to Martin's death. However, the prosecutor wants to win, as does the defense lawyer. Neither has scruples.
I have said from the very beginning that Zimmerman did not deserve a charge of murder, but have maintained that manslaughter would be the proper conviction, due to Zimmerman's recklessness, which resulted in the altercation that led to Martin's death. However, the prosecutor wants to win, as does the defense lawyer. Neither has scruples.
Wrong...
Stick with what the laws says and it's self defense..any way you slice it. It's justifiable homicide
your imagination is laughable.
the known evidence indicates that the dead person engaged in assault without provocation.
I have said from the very beginning that Zimmerman did not deserve a charge of murder, but have maintained that manslaughter would be the proper conviction, due to Zimmerman's recklessness, which resulted in the altercation that led to Martin's death. However, the prosecutor wants to win, as does the defense lawyer. Neither has scruples.
And that is a false narrative.
Following to keep a suspicious person under surveillance until the police arrive, is not reckless.
™ let Zimmerman pass by him twice and then approached Zimmerman in a hasty manner from his rear, yelling a question, and when he arrived upon him, immediately struck him.
™ was the cause, the one who was reckless, and the one responsible for his own death.
You should really learn the evidence.
Of course. Cause the other side of the story is...dead.
the recklessness on Zimmerman's part, by following Martin, after being instructed by the police not to, is well established, which is what I base my prediction on.
He defended himself, he has that right. The jury has to consider the evidence presented and determine if he did something wrong BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT. The prosecution failed to remove doubt in most everyone's mind. There is plenty of doubt about a lot of this case. The only reason anyone wants to try to convict him is because they feel personal guilt, are afraid another "LA Riot" and/or because those two idiots (Obama and Holder) cursed the legal process from Day One.
Whether or not is was actually self defense has not been proven one way or the other, as neither side was able to make their case. However, the recklessness on Zimmerman's part, by following Martin, after being instructed by the police not to, is well established, which is what I base my prediction on.
Whether or not is was actually self defense has not been proven one way or the other, as neither side was able to make their case. However, the recklessness on Zimmerman's part, by following Martin, after being instructed by the police not to, is well established, which is what I base my prediction on.
The following part is totally irrelevant, and the defense doesn't have to prove guilt...the prosecution does. He was told by DISPATCHER that following Martin was unnecessary. He received on lawful order to stop. No where in the police recording was he told, "Don't follow Martin". And even if he was told that, he still didn't break any law in doing so.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?