| Users Online Now: 1,883 (Who's On?) | Visitors Today: 1,050,016 | |
| Pageviews Today: 1,828,262 | Threads Today: 710 | Posts Today: 14,025 |
| 07:57 PM | ||
| Users Online Now: 1,883 (Who's On?) | Visitors Today: 1,050,016 | |
| Pageviews Today: 1,828,262 | Threads Today: 710 | Posts Today: 14,025 |
| 07:57 PM | ||
Zimmerman should be charged with INVOLUNTARY manslaughter | |
| Anonymous Coward User ID: 13068557  United States07/11/2013 02:20 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | I don't believe he set out to kill or even to harm Trayvon but because of his reckless actions this was the outcome. Quoting: Iconoclastics He is certainly not a cold-blooded murderer but he needs to be held accountable for his actions. As far as we know no crime was being committed yet Zimmerman confronted Trayvon anyway, even when told not to by the dispatcher. If you or I would have been confronted by a stranger at night for no apparent reason we would probably react the same way Martin did. We'd defend ourselves. It is tragic what happened and I feel sorry for Zimmerman (and even more sorry for Trayvon) but he must be held responsible for his actions and his sentence should also serve as an example to the rest of us about what can happen when we ignore the conventions of law and order. set Zimmerman free reimburse him for all his legal and court expenses put Martins parents in jail for not raising him to respect his elders! He EGO was his own downfall |
Chrit
 User ID: 27088294 United States07/11/2013 02:21 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | This is how it used to be done, you were automatically charged with a crime anytime a shooting happened. Quoting: Chrit example; If a person came through your front door and your children were sleeping up stairs you legally had to run out the back door leave the kids and call the police from a location you retreated to, or if someone rear-ended you and your kids were in the back seat of the car and the person who hit you pulls a knife you legally had to run away from the fight, you had a “duty to retreat”. In Ohio in the early 80’s a man went to jail for life for protecting his children, court said he could have retreated from the fight and the burglar had not threatened his sleeping children in the house only him and because he could have gotten away rather than defend himself he was guilty. That case started a chain reaction that lead to all the laws to be changed to “no duty to retreat” Even more important with this Ohio case, because he was found guilty of a crime the family of the attacker was allowed to come back and file suit in civil court and take everything his family owned. So a guy breaks in your house shoots at you misses you wrestle the gun away and kill him saving your family you go to jail for life and the guys family who broke in gets everything you own. Remember with the trial, Zimmerman does not have to prove he was threatened he only has to prove he “felt” threatened and it becomes justifiable, the reason for this is a guy points his finger at you from his coat pocket like a gun, you think he has a gun and you shoot him, you “believed” your life to be in danger and are not guilty and with the laws the way they are now you cannot be sued in court for civil damages by the attackers family. This is why it is not manslaughter, he “believed” he was in danger, he did not acutely have to be in danger for it to be justifiable. I’ll yell if I remember the exact Ohio case…tip of my tongue, it was a very famous case everyone knew he should not go to jail but letter of the law said he was guilty at the time and this is why they changed the letter of the law. But if Zimmerman started the fight knowing that he had a gun in his pocket in case he was losing the fight, he is possibly guilty of involuntary manslaughter. You cannot start a fight with someone when you have a gun in your pocket and then claim you believed you were in danger if the other guy starts kicking your ass. Can’t prove beyond a reasonable doubt he started a fight, legally there is no law against following or confronting a person verbally even if the police told you not to over the phone. But according to the videotaped police reenactment police did asked Z for an address and Zimmerman was confronted from behind after walking to get an address, burden of proof is on the prosecution to prove an attack by Z and that is not possible. There is only one full testimony of what happened that night and that is what George said all else is speculation. For involuntary manslaughter you have to prove culpable negligence, under Florida law that means recklessly acting without reasonable caution and putting another person at risk of injury or death (or failing to do something with the same consequences) Under the police videotaped reenactment and that is all that matters at this point for the court, it is not provable that he had any reason to act any different even up to the moment of confrontation because there was nothing to make him suspect a threat. Other thing, when you get your CCW you are told NEVER talk to the police for at least 24 hours after you have to use your weapon. It is the police unions own rule that an officer does not have to make a statement for 24 hours and if it is good enough for the police it is good enough for you also. The reason is you need to reflect back on what happened and say it clearly without stumbling over your own words. Far as I know George made his statements right away after the shooting and the story never wavered from the start, that says a lot. I'm only human, it's my biggest flaw. We must all realize a sink a chair and a pillow are all luxuries of home and a soldiers helmet takes the place of all three. |
| interlocutor
User ID: 1008091  Canada07/11/2013 02:24 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | I would go a step a lower and charge him with negligent homicide because he was doing a public service at the time. Then he could accept that in a plea bargain for little jail time or try to fight it and spend I think a max of three years. It may be different for florida though. Murder 1 is absurd. |
| Anonymous Coward User ID: 42021534 United States07/11/2013 02:27 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | This is how it used to be done, you were automatically charged with a crime anytime a shooting happened. Quoting: Chrit example; If a person came through your front door and your children were sleeping up stairs you legally had to run out the back door leave the kids and call the police from a location you retreated to, or if someone rear-ended you and your kids were in the back seat of the car and the person who hit you pulls a knife you legally had to run away from the fight, you had a “duty to retreat”. In Ohio in the early 80’s a man went to jail for life for protecting his children, court said he could have retreated from the fight and the burglar had not threatened his sleeping children in the house only him and because he could have gotten away rather than defend himself he was guilty. That case started a chain reaction that lead to all the laws to be changed to “no duty to retreat” Even more important with this Ohio case, because he was found guilty of a crime the family of the attacker was allowed to come back and file suit in civil court and take everything his family owned. So a guy breaks in your house shoots at you misses you wrestle the gun away and kill him saving your family you go to jail for life and the guys family who broke in gets everything you own. Remember with the trial, Zimmerman does not have to prove he was threatened he only has to prove he “felt” threatened and it becomes justifiable, the reason for this is a guy points his finger at you from his coat pocket like a gun, you think he has a gun and you shoot him, you “believed” your life to be in danger and are not guilty and with the laws the way they are now you cannot be sued in court for civil damages by the attackers family. This is why it is not manslaughter, he “believed” he was in danger, he did not acutely have to be in danger for it to be justifiable. I’ll yell if I remember the exact Ohio case…tip of my tongue, it was a very famous case everyone knew he should not go to jail but letter of the law said he was guilty at the time and this is why they changed the letter of the law. But if Zimmerman started the fight knowing that he had a gun in his pocket in case he was losing the fight, he is possibly guilty of involuntary manslaughter. You cannot start a fight with someone when you have a gun in your pocket and then claim you believed you were in danger if the other guy starts kicking your ass. Can’t prove beyond a reasonable doubt he started a fight, legally there is no law against following or confronting a person verbally even if the police told you not to over the phone. But according to the videotaped police reenactment police did asked Z for an address and Zimmerman was confronted from behind after walking to get an address, burden of proof is on the prosecution to prove an attack by Z and that is not possible. There is only one full testimony of what happened that night and that is what George said all else is speculation. For involuntary manslaughter you have to prove culpable negligence, under Florida law that means recklessly acting without reasonable caution and putting another person at risk of injury or death (or failing to do something with the same consequences) Under the police videotaped reenactment and that is all that matters at this point for the court, it is not provable that he had any reason to act any different even up to the moment of confrontation because there was nothing to make him suspect a threat. Other thing, when you get your CCW you are told NEVER talk to the police for at least 24 hours after you have to use your weapon. It is the police unions own rule that an officer does not have to make a statement for 24 hours and if it is good enough for the police it is good enough for you also. The reason is you need to reflect back on what happened and say it clearly without stumbling over your own words. Far as I know George made his statements right away after the shooting and the story never wavered from the start, that says a lot. Yes, I know there is no evidence showing that Z started the altercation but that doesn't mean that he didn't. No one else saw the incident start except the victim. Without that, Z should not be convicted, especially since all of the evidence that does exist corroborates his story. I was just saying that in general terms, one cannot start altercations with a gun in their pocket and then use it and claim self defense. |
| Chrit
User ID: 27088294 United States07/11/2013 02:47 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | I would go a step a lower and charge him with negligent homicide because he was doing a public service at the time. Quoting: interlocutor Then he could accept that in a plea bargain for little jail time or try to fight it and spend I think a max of three years. It may be different for florida though. Murder 1 is absurd. Reason why they won't plea down is if "guilty" of any count the family can come back with civil litigation, If fully acquitted he is protected against civil litigation. Ok I'm done, let’s see how this ends, thx for the discussion all. 776.012 He or she reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the imminent commission of a forcible felony; or 776.032 Immunity from criminal prosecution and civil action for justifiable use of force.— (1)A person who uses force as permitted in s. 776.012, s. 776.013, or s. 776.031 is justified in using such force and is immune from criminal prosecution and civil action for the use of such force Last Edited by Chrit on 07/11/2013 02:48 PM I'm only human, it's my biggest flaw. We must all realize a sink a chair and a pillow are all luxuries of home and a soldiers helmet takes the place of all three. |
