• 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.

Do You Think Zimmerman is Guilty?

What's your Verdict?

  • Total voters
    115
repeter

repeter

DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 2, 2009
Messages
3,445
Reaction score
682
Location
California
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Centrist
This article really confirmed what I've been thinking about this whole thing. Zimmerman didn't mean to shoot Martin, he was doing his best to protect his neighbors. I think it's likely that Zimmerman provoked Martin, who lost control, started beating the crap out of Zimmerman, who shot Martin in self-defense.

George Zimmerman: Prelude to a shooting - Yahoo! News

But anyway, do you think Zimmerman is guilty of 2nd degree murder? Keep in mind, he has to have had a passionnate intent to kill.
 
I don't think, based on what has been made available, that we'll ever definitively know for sure.

Personally, I think Zimmerman provoked the entire scenario, and therefore should be disqualified from claiming self-defense. But that isn't how the law is written, and based on his story and the current law, without any new witnesses to the moments prior to Martin being on top of Zimmerman, everything points to self-defense. Of course, because of the gaps in witness observation and the 911 calls, it's impossible for us to know what of the story is true and what isn't. Either way, a kid died because Zimmerman got a little too involved in his NW role, and Zimmerman's going to be living with that for the rest of his life, conviction or not.
 
repeter said:
Keep in mind, he has to have had a passionnate intent to kill.
Click to expand...
How do you mean "intent to kill"?




Statutes & Constitution :View Statutes : Online Sunshine




The unlawful killing of a human being, when perpetrated by any act imminently dangerous to another and evincing a depraved mind regardless of human life, although without any premeditated design to effect the death of any particular individual, is murder in the second degree and constitutes a felony of the first degree, punishable by imprisonment for a term of years not exceeding life or as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084.
 
Last edited:
He's admittedly guilty of taking Martin's life. How the jury will view it, remains to be seen. Without knowing what evidence the Special Prosecutor has in order to file 2nd Degree murder, I don't know if I agree with that charge or something lesser.
 
Of 2nd degree murder, no unless there is something huge that we do not know yet. Of a lesser charge like manslaughter, maybe.
 
It is best to wait for the courtcase before passing judgement as we are not privy to all the information.
No matter how you look at it though a kid is dead and that is a tragedy
 
Quag said:
It is best to wait for the courtcase before passing judgement as we are not privy to all the information.
No matter how you look at it though a kid is dead and that is a tragedy
Click to expand...

I largely agree. For the moment, however, I don't see enough to say he's guilty of seconod degree murder. That said, this was a tragedy, and Zimmerman shares at least some blame for what happened. The question has to do with whether that blame equals a criminal charge of some kind.
 
repeter said:
This article really confirmed what I've been thinking about this whole thing. Zimmerman didn't mean to shoot Martin, he was doing his best to protect his neighbors. I think it's likely that Zimmerman provoked Martin, who lost control, started beating the crap out of Zimmerman, who shot Martin in self-defense.
Click to expand...


ditto..

i'd say he's guilty of a lesser charge.. though not sure which..
picked a fight, started getting his ass handed to him, so he pulls a gun due to a cro-magnon thought process.
 
Last edited:
I believe that the jury will find him guilty of Manslaughter.

Guilty of Murder? its hard to say.
 
tessaesque said:
I don't think, based on what has been made available, that we'll ever definitively know for sure.

Personally, I think Zimmerman provoked the entire scenario, and therefore should be disqualified from claiming self-defense. But that isn't how the law is written, and based on his story and the current law, without any new witnesses to the moments prior to Martin being on top of Zimmerman, everything points to self-defense. Of course, because of the gaps in witness observation and the 911 calls, it's impossible for us to know what of the story is true and what isn't. Either way, a kid died because Zimmerman got a little too involved in his NW role, and Zimmerman's going to be living with that for the rest of his life, conviction or not.
Click to expand...

Tess, I'm with you somewhat only because of the 911 call. It clearly captures Zimmerman being told not to pursue Martin. Zimmerman clearly said that Martin was on the run. And Zimmerman, obviously pissed, said that Martin was getting away. Sooooooo?

I think it was Oscar who brought up that it was dark and raining. Well, that might explain why the hoodie was being worn. I think Martin frequently wore one...but one's more likely to wear the hood up in rainy type weather. And being dark...that raised a number of questions in both directions. But there's no history of Martin being a hardcore aggressive type kid that frequently engaged in violent acts. He had his problems, for sure, but I would think for a person to run from somebody-in the dark-and then reverse course to attack that person. That kind of person would have to be a fairly violent person by nature.

Like you say...we may never know what the hell truly happened.

HOWEVER...it ain't a done deal until the jury foreman gives the verdict...and even then it may not be over.
 
Removable Mind said:
Tess, I'm with you somewhat only because of the 911 call. It clearly captures Zimmerman being told not to pursue Martin. Zimmerman clearly said that Martin was on the run. And Zimmerman, obviously pissed, said that Martin was getting away. Sooooooo?....
Click to expand...

hmm..I didn't catch that part.

did Zimmerman actually state "he's getting away"?

that sounds like a man in pursuit.

one can't get away from you...unless you are after them.
 
Thunder said:
hmm..I didn't catch that part.

did Zimmerman actually state "he's getting away"?

that sounds like a man in pursuit.

one can't get away from you...unless you are after them.
Click to expand...

I'm pretty sure he said that. I posted the transcript on one of the related threads. I'll have to look it up. It was highlighted in the publication where I copied it from. Soooo? I'll look for it and post it if I can.
 
Based strictly on what I've heard from the media, no, I don't think he's guilty of 2nd degree murder. I think he's guilty of something, but I'm not sure what it should be. Maybe involuntary manslaughter. I think he acted rashly, and was at least partially at fault for provoking the confrontation between the two men.
 
Thunder said:
hmm..I didn't catch that part.

did Zimmerman actually state "he's getting away"?

that sounds like a man in pursuit.

one can't get away from you...unless you are after them.
Click to expand...



Transcript.jpg

That's how the call went. What it all means for sure...????
 
repeter said:
This article really confirmed what I've been thinking about this whole thing. Zimmerman didn't mean to shoot Martin, he was doing his best to protect his neighbors. I think it's likely that Zimmerman provoked Martin, who lost control, started beating the crap out of Zimmerman, who shot Martin in self-defense.

George Zimmerman: Prelude to a shooting - Yahoo! News

But anyway, do you think Zimmerman is guilty of 2nd degree murder? Keep in mind, he has to have had a passionnate intent to kill.
Click to expand...

I don't think he went out that evening looking to kill anyone, and I'm sure he feels horrible about the whole incident and wishes that he could undo it, etc. But that doesn't change the fact that he killed an unarmed kid. I don't know what Florida law is on the subject, but it seems to me that if you can't kill someone in self-defense if they're just punching you, and that you can't kill someone in self-defense at all if you yourself provoked the fight.
 
Removable Mind said:
I'm pretty sure he said that. I posted the transcript on one of the related threads. I'll have to look it up. It was highlighted in the publication where I copied it from. Soooo? I'll look for it and post it if I can.
Click to expand...

From what I recall at the time, they did not tell him not to pursue, they said they didn't need him to pursue. There is a difference.
 
Cephus said:
From what I recall at the time, they did not tell him not to pursue, they said they didn't need him to pursue. There is a difference.
Click to expand...

and that's another example of how the police ****ed up.

they should insisted that Zimmerman return to his car or go home immediately.
 
Currently, the only logical choice is "I don't know."
 
Thunder said:
and that's another example of how the police ****ed up.

they should insisted that Zimmerman return to his car or go home immediately.
Click to expand...

Regardless of what you think should have happened, we can only go with what actually happened. Far too many people are making judgement on things that simply didn't happen.
 
Cephus said:
From what I recall at the time, they did not tell him not to pursue, they said they didn't need him to pursue. There is a difference.
Click to expand...

Cephus, you don't have to recall. I posted an actual transcript of what the dispatcher's conversation was with Zimmerman. I think what you are suggesting is a matter of semantics.

You can clearly see by the transcript that the dispatcher didn't know who "George Zimmerman" was or his role as a neighborhood watch person. That said, under such a situation, why would a police dispatcher ask Zimmerman to make that decision in such a casual manner? The dispatcher should clearly know that under such circumstance, she shouldn't be advising Zimmerman to pursue, or leave him to make the choice to pursue, and to put himself or others at risk.

The dispatcher didn't know if the person he would pursue was carrying a weapon or not. Or was a violent person who would aggressively attack Zimmerman. But more importantly, by the transcript, there's no indication at all that the dispatcher was aware that Zimmerman had a weapon on his person.

For me...that statement "Okay, we don't need you to do that." meant just that...don't pursue.

As always...just my opinion. There's too many pieces of the puzzle that needs to be brought forth.
 
Cephus said:
From what I recall at the time, they did not tell him not to pursue, they said they didn't need him to pursue. There is a difference.
Click to expand...
Since he's not legally obligated to oblige in either case, what do you see as the significance of one over the other?
 
Simon W. Moon said:
How do you mean "intent to kill"?

Statutes & Constitution :View Statutes : Online Sunshine

The unlawful killing of a human being, when perpetrated by any act imminently dangerous to another and evincing a depraved mind regardless of human life, although without any premeditated design to effect the death of any particular individual, is murder in the second degree and constitutes a felony of the first degree, punishable by imprisonment for a term of years not exceeding life or as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084.
Click to expand...

Uhhh, you're skipping right over "evincing a depraved mind...."

The condition of mind described as depravity of mind is characterized by an inherent deficiency of moral sense and integrity. It consists of evil, corrupt and perverted intent which is devoid of regard for human dignity and which is indifferent to human life. It is a state of mind outrageously horrible or inhuman.
Click to expand...

Now what? How shall we railroad this guy into 2nd degree murder now?
 
Simon W. Moon said:
Since he's not legally obligated to oblige in either case, what do you see as the significance of one over the other?
Click to expand...

In one case, the police are ordering him not to do something, in the other, they are suggesting it. Actually, they're not even suggesting it, they're just stating that they do not need him to do something, they didn't actually say not to. Legally, there is no difference, you're right.
 
Simon W. Moon said:
How do you mean "intent to kill"?

Statutes & Constitution :View Statutes : Online Sunshine

The unlawful killing of a human being, when perpetrated by any act imminently dangerous to another and evincing a depraved mind regardless of human life, although without any premeditated design to effect the death of any particular individual, is murder in the second degree and constitutes a felony of the first degree, punishable by imprisonment for a term of years not exceeding life or as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084.
Click to expand...

I think the operative phrase in this is the underlined/italicized portion rather than the bolded portion. There's no argument that there was no premeditation, or this would be a 1st degree charge. The prosecution/facts have yet to establish anywhere that Zimmerman is guilty of this. Provoking someone or being an overzealous watchman isn't an act imminently dangerous to another and does not evince a depraved mind regardless of human life.

soccerboy22 said:
Of 2nd degree murder, no unless there is something huge that we do not know yet. Of a lesser charge like manslaughter, maybe
Click to expand...

I was wondering about that. Allow me to be an armchair prosecutor for a second; I would've charged Zimmerman with manslaughter rather than murder. My understanding is that manslaughter does not require prior knowledge that your actions will kill someone, or cause a deadly situation. I highly doubt Zimmerman went up to Martin either knowing or thinking it might even remotely end with Martin dead.

The underlined portion of my above statement is a prerequisite for succesfully prosecuting someone on a 2nd degree murder charge, and I would bet a heck of a lot that the prosecutors cannot, and will not establish that in court proceedings.

Does anyone know why the prosecutors decided to go with 2nd degree murder rather than manslaughter? I think I heard something about it on CNN, but it could be my imagination.
 
Last edited:
As of yet, there is no evidence that Zimmerman intended to kill Martin as he pursued him in his car and on foot.

So as of yet, there is no evidence that would justify convicting him of Murder 2.

Manslaughter? you betcha'.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom