Justice for Zimmerman

So whatever happened to all of the stuff about the prosecution having GPS data for Trayvon's phone that mysteriously lacked data from the day of his suicide?

Iannis_sl said:

It's kinda like why not charge everyone with first degree murder.

You slapped your wife? MURDERER.

You were caught jacking it in a public restroom? MURDERER.

It just seems absurd that the accuser is allowed to throw shit against the wall like that.

Click to expand...

I really thought you just throw everything remotely applicable at the wall and see what you can get to stick. If the State wants/needs to change it or narrow it down they can redo the charges as an indictment rather than what the charging police officers originally wrote. Not sure if that's correct and/or if its different in Florida.

But once again, I thought this took place before trial started, not after your closing arguments or whatever.

Yeah. I mean my main gripe with it is that they're doing it after the arguments have been made.

If they'd charged him with one type of murder, three types of manslaughter, and just overall felonious use of a firearm (which I'm sure is like 30 different charges), I wouldn't really have a problem with that. That says to me "These are the laws we consider that he has broken, and require you to consider".

It's doing it after the arguments have been made. It just seems so fucked up and lazy. Even if there's not a huge difference.

Butthurt_sl said:

OK, here's why they can charge that. Homicide is a two part offense that requires a mens rea (mental state) and actus reus (action). If someone kills someone else, its homicide, because of the killing, the actus reus. Punishment is dependent upon the mental state at the time of the offense. Deliberate, planned homicide is generally first degree murder, because there was full out intent to kill, and some serious thought put into it. Second degree murder is lower because it doesnt require planning, only intentionally or knowingly killing someone or causing serious bodily injury that leads to death. This is what Z has been charged with. Then you have manslaughter/murder 3rd degree, which is generally a "sudden passions" crime (so overcome with rage that you killed, but the killing wasn't entirely intentional, and then criminally negligent homicide, which is a nice way of saying a really, really fucked up accident.

Here's the trick. With homicide, a higher charge includes all the lesser offenses. Thus, Murder 2 includes manslaughter, and Criminally negligent homicide, since they are just steps down the mens rea ladder. As prosecutor, if i can prove that sudden passions led to the homicide, but no real intent, then I've proven manslaughter, not murder 2. The point is that a homicide still happened. All we are debating is culpable mental state, and that allows for convictions for lesser forms of homicide than the one charged. That's how lesser included offenses work. Assault and rape are not homicide, so you cant charge murder, since its not the same class of crime.

Click to expand...

Yeah, I still thought you had to specify a list of specific lesser offenses up front, not just at the end after you've heard the defense's entire case.

Did I miss it or did the defense not call any experts in to testify about trayvon martin smoking marijuana within a few hours of the incident and his toxicology report?

B_Mizzle_sl said:

Did I miss it or did the defense not call any experts in to testify about trayvon martin smoking marijuana within a few hours of the incident and his toxicology report?

Click to expand...

If I remember the judge basically said that all of that and the phone stuff was not useable as it did not pertain to the case... also at the bottom of a news article.. "Editor's note: George Zimmerman has sued NBC Universal for defamation. The company strongly denies the allegation." hehe

Cad_sl said:

...burden of proof is much different in civil court than it is in criminal court; so it'd be a whole new deal in civil court.

Click to expand...

Would it be more likely that the evidence deemed inadmissible in criminal court would be admissible in civil court? Specifically, the texts, etc. Or does it not really make a difference?

Also, I chuckled pretty hard at "Judge Eat-O".

One of the more bitter people about this case at this point. Ridiculous this guy got booted from his job.
http://www.cnn.com/2013/07/10/justic...html?hpt=hp_t1

xadion_sl said:

If I remember the judge basically said that all of that and the phone stuff was not useable as it did not pertain to the case... also at the bottom of a news article.. "Editor's note: George Zimmerman has sued NBC Universal for defamation. The company strongly denies the allegation." hehe

Click to expand...

Oh I thought the judge ruled that the toxicology was in because Chairman Bao changed his opinion on it?

Ya, the judge basically said they'd allow it, but I guess the defense didn't bother with it, or just wanted to throw the prosecution off guard? At this point, I don't think there's enough evidence to convict Z of anything at all beyond a reasonable doubt, but I have a feeling he will get manslaughter.

I'd say odds of a hung jury are really high (I assume some will be emotionally involved regardless of facts). Followed by acquittal, which if happens will likely be really quick. Otherwise I'd only give an outside chance that he gets convicted of anything and the only way that happens is if every member of the jury is completely stupid.

Would be interesting to see the reaction if the jury goes in, takes their first vote, unanimous, comes out and says "Not guilty" all in the span of 15 minutes.

I wouldn't want to be a male on trial for shooting someone's son with a jury of only women.

I realize most everyone had their opinion on the case before it even went to trial. But for the life of me, I dont understand why the media is never held responsible for sending people to jail. This entire farce of a case was started by the media and their downright criminal actions in presenting it to the public.

When the case broke, they kept showing pictures of a small black child that was killed by a hulking dude in an orange jumpsuit like outfit. This enraged people because it appeared that this Zimmerman guy killed a small innocent child. Now looking back at it, they were showing a picture of Trayvon approx 6 years younger....11 to 12 years old at the time...even though they had access to pictures with him holding guns and drugs, they decided to use the poor, sweet , innocent picture of a 12 year old.

Then you had the media actually edit the 911 tapes to make it seem like Zimmerman was a crazed lunatic aiming to kill black people. The flames just started to get hotter, now the black community is calling for Zimmermans head, you have Obama throwing his two cents around etc... When you listen to the 911 tape that was NOT edited, he doesnt seem like a racist at all. He was simply answering a question that dispatch had asked.

Now you have the trial and absolutely nothing damning about Trayvon can be mentioned. Zimmerman was dead right...he was involved with drugs, guns, fights etc...you had his mother that kicked him out of the house, he was kicked out of school, caught with drugs and stolen jewelry etc......Yet the same mom that kicked him out of the house because he was TOO much trouble, had been touring the country and the media circuit raising money with Sharpton and Jackson talking about how innocent and sweet he was.

Its fucking clear as day now that the media started this shit, and do nothing but get rich from it.

There was more evidence that Casey Anthony killed her child than the OJ trial, yet she walked completely free because the jury stated over the trial that " They felt murder 1 was too much", but they the DID in fact believe "killed Caylee, but wasnt sure how"...so she walked free. Yet here with Zimmerman, they charge Murder 2, and no matter what side of the fence you are on.....the prosecution damn sure didnt prove a murder 2 charge, so now they can basically just find him guilty of anything lesser?? How does this work?

I dont think there is a shadow of doubt that what Zimmerman did was legal, yet I have zero faith in the justice system and since they are allowing pretty much any charge they want to be given to Zimmerman, I feel there is no way he walks and will be convicted just to placate the black population.

it is rather interesting that they release that CNN story less than an hour after the defense rests. i guess its a coincidence. its also funny how much concern there is for this one case about one thug killed by a hispanic man and meanwhile 10 black kids were shot and killed in chicago over the weekend. i dont see sharpton racing over to chicago to heal the black on black crime.