• 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.

Is Manslaughter Likely for Zimmerman?

spanky said:
Pulling a gun?
Click to expand...

Absolutely, but what witness testimony has said the gun was pulled prior to the broken nose? Not even the "ear witness" claimed that had happened.
 
MaggieD said:
I think it all hinges on the judge's instructions to the jury -- explaining to the jury just what they must find him guilty of to find him guilty of what. (Does that make sense?) I won't be surprised if they find him guilty of manslaughter if the judge's instructions allow it. But I think, since that carries a max of thirty years in this instance, the jury will be stunned if he receives that harsh a sentence.

I wouldn't be surprised if he's found guilty of a lesser charge.
Click to expand...

As much as I believe Z ****ed up, knows it, and lied about it, thirty years is WAY TOO MUCH.

I'd be happy with a formal "you ****ed up", TBH.

I actually got a little worried about him for a second reading about affirmative defenses and such, (weird as THAT sounds, even to me).
 
ttwtt78640 said:
Absolutely, but what witness testimony has said the gun was pulled prior to the broken nose? Not even the "ear witness" claimed that had happened.
Click to expand...

What witness testimony proves Z pulled his gun and shot TM?

The witnesses didn't see carp, gun or no gun, the absence of witness testimony one way or the other doesn't prove he did or didn't.

But we do know at some point that gun came out...you know, because TM is dead.
 
What if...? said:
As much as I believe Z ****ed up, knows it, and lied about it, thirty years is WAY TOO MUCH.

I'd be happy with a formal "you ****ed up", TBH.

I actually got a little worried about him for a second reading about affirmative defenses and such, (weird as THAT sounds, even to me).
Click to expand...

I think that involuntary manslaughter is 15 years and a $10,000 fine.
 
spanky said:
What witness testimony proves Z pulled his gun and shot TM?

The witnesses didn't see carp, gun or no gun, the absence of witness testimony one way or the other doesn't prove he did or didn't.

But we do know at some point that gun came out...you know, because TM is dead.
Click to expand...

Exactly! In order to use the "gun drawing" as justification for TM's assault/battery, it must have been drawn prior to that action. With no evidence stating that was the case (and testimony to the contrary), it cannot be used to justify TM's attack. GZ is using TM's attack, that was seen by witnesses, is backed up by physical evidence ("fight" injuries to GZ but none to TM) and the fact that nobody saw the gun drawn, to justify the shooting.
 
I cannot even imagine being on the jury and not being able to talk to other jurors about the case yet. I'd be itching to talk from day one.
 
ttwtt78640 said:
Absolutely, but what witness testimony has said the gun was pulled prior to the broken nose? Not even the "ear witness" claimed that had happened.
Click to expand...

An argument can be made that the initial punch was justified no -lethal self defense based on the motion of going for one's phone at that moment after his previous behavior.

That statement, which was in the EARLIEST narratives, even by relatives, has always struck me as the most absurd thing Z claims.

Who does that as a dangerous, possibly armed suspect charges toward them?

Step back and think about that for a second.

Then put yourself in Ms shoes and decide if he would conclude Z was going for a phone or a weapon.

You are walking towards and speaking to this guy who's been following you all over and he doesn't turn to speak, all he answers to your asking if he has a problem is "No" and he goes for his pockets. Not even smoothly as the phone wasn't where he normally keeps it.

I believe it would be legal for M to have initiated a physical conflict at this point in reasonable self defense. If so, Zs defense clouds right up.

If, as I believe many would objectively consider likely, Z went for his GUN when M appeared and charged towards him, his self defense claim gets downright muddy.

(And the lie would be he was going for his phone in case anybody saw, and the "phone in the wrong pocket" was added in case it came out he normally carried it on the OTHER side).

The fact that a self defense on Ms part argument also answers the question of WHY M supposedly attacked Z so savagely, when there's nothing to indicate M's predisposed to that kind of thing, seems to lend credence to the theory as well.
 
ttwtt78640 said:
Absolutely, but what witness testimony has said the gun was pulled prior to the broken nose? Not even the "ear witness" claimed that had happened.
Click to expand...

You're missing the point. No eyewitness or earwitness ever says anything about a gun or when it came out, all we have is Z's statements and Z has been lying since the start.
 
What if...? said:
An argument can be made that the initial punch was justified no -lethal self defense based on the motion of going for one's phone at that moment after his previous behavior.

That statement, which was in the EARLIEST narratives, even by relatives, has always struck me as the most absurd thing Z claims.

Who does that as a dangerous, possibly armed suspect charges toward them?

Step back and think about that for a second.

Then put yourself in Ms shoes and decide if he would conclude Z was going for a phone or a weapon.

You are walking towards and speaking to this guy who's been following you all over and he doesn't turn to speak, all he answers to your asking if he has a problem is "No" and he goes for his pockets. Not even smoothly as the phone wasn't where he normally keeps it.

I believe it would be legal for M to have initiated a physical conflict at this point in reasonable self defense. If so, Zs defense clouds right up.

If, as I believe many would objectively consider likely, Z went for his GUN when M appeared and charged towards him, his self defense claim gets downright muddy.

(And the lie would be he was going for his phone in case anybody saw, and the "phone in the wrong pocket" was added in case it came out he normally carried it on the OTHER side).

The fact that a self defense on Ms part argument also answers the question of WHY M supposedly attacked Z so savagely, when there's nothing to indicate M's predisposed to that kind of thing, seems to lend credence to the theory as well.
Click to expand...

There is one big hole in that theory, the prosecution's own "ear witness" to the very beginning of the "conflict"; that witness stated that she heard a "bump" (asserting that TM was getting hit?) and that TM said "get off" - not "gun", or "don't shoot". If you are "reacting" to a gun being drawn you are not, at all, likely to say "get off". The GF/phone witness ws trying to paint GZ as the aggressor but never, ever mentioned gun - nor did any other prosecution witness until after the gun was fired. Also, if you are fighting someone armed then you would at least yell gun (as opposed to help) to ensure that police would respond ASAP.
 
spanky said:
You're missing the point. No eyewitness or earwitness ever says anything about a gun or when it came out, all we have is Z's statements and Z has been lying since the start.
Click to expand...

You have entered the twilight zone now. If GZ said it happened one way, but you think he is lying, then it must have happened your way? In other words, if GZ (that you know is a liar) does not simply confess then he is guilty anyway? The state only has to prove the accused is "a liar" (using unspecified falsehoods) and that now makes them guilty of murder 2?
 
spanky said:
You're missing the point. No eyewitness or earwitness ever says anything about a gun or when it came out, all we have is Z's statements and Z has been lying since the start.
Click to expand...

But he hasn't...
 
spanky said:
yes, but what crime was TM committing when GZ claimed he "went for my phone to call 911"?
Click to expand...

What if...? said:
An argument can be made that the initial punch was justified no -lethal self defense based on the motion of going for one's phone at that moment after his previous behavior.

That statement, which was in the EARLIEST narratives, even by relatives, has always struck me as the most absurd thing Z claims.

Who does that as a dangerous, possibly armed suspect charges toward them?

Step back and think about that for a second.

Then put yourself in Ms shoes and decide if he would conclude Z was going for a phone or a weapon.

You are walking towards and speaking to this guy who's been following you all over and he doesn't turn to speak, all he answers to your asking if he has a problem is "No" and he goes for his pockets. Not even smoothly as the phone wasn't where he normally keeps it.

I believe it would be legal for M to have initiated a physical conflict at this point in reasonable self defense. If so, Zs defense clouds right up.

If, as I believe many would objectively consider likely, Z went for his GUN when M appeared and charged towards him, his self defense claim gets downright muddy.

(And the lie would be he was going for his phone in case anybody saw, and the "phone in the wrong pocket" was added in case it came out he normally carried it on the OTHER side).

The fact that a self defense on Ms part argument also answers the question of WHY M supposedly attacked Z so savagely, when there's nothing to indicate M's predisposed to that kind of thing, seems to lend credence to the theory as well.
Click to expand...

You need evidence that Z punched, grabbed, or pushed M to entitle M to respond with force.

Unsure of what Z was pulling out of his pocket is NOT enough provocation

Holy ****.....you are ****ing tiresome with this crap

Give it a rest and go watch a vampire movie or some porn
 
ttwtt78640 said:
There is one big hole in that theory, the prosecution's own "ear witness" to the very beginning of the "conflict"; that witness stated that she heard a "bump" (asserting that TM was getting hit?) and that TM said "get off" - not "gun", or "don't shoot". If you are "reacting" to a gun being drawn you are not, at all, likely to say "get off". The GF/phone witness ws trying to paint GZ as the aggressor but never, ever mentioned gun - nor did any other prosecution witness until after the gun was fired. Also, if you are fighting someone armed then you would at least yell gun (as opposed to help) to ensure that police would respond ASAP.
Click to expand...

Rachels statements are suspect. Whether she means it or not.

And there's no reason M HAD to mention the gun, nor that the "actual" gun disn't come into play AFTER the phone disconnected.

And that there was no mention of a gun in the screams is why I think it was Z screaming.

Imagine how THAT sounds from the guy who is apparently trying to shoot you.
 
Josie said:
Okay, stream of consciousness here.....

I've heard of those tragic events where a parent thinks they hear a burglar at night so they get up with their gun and shoot at who they think is an intruder. It turns out that it's his daughter or son. If he had just stayed in bed, this wouldn't have happened. Should that man be convicted of manslaughter because he got out of bed?
Click to expand...

I could actually go as far as first degree murder there, since they had gotten out of bed with the intent to kill (premeditation). I'm no legal expert, though, but I could see someone being given at least a second degree murder charge for that one.
 
MadLib said:
I could actually go as far as first degree murder there, since they had gotten out of bed with the intent to kill (premeditation). I'm no legal expert, though, but I could see someone being given at least a second degree murder charge for that one.
Click to expand...

Wow....
 
Lachean said:
I don't see how #1 would contribute to negligence. If you're in a 911 situation just because the police are coming doesn't mean you have to disarm. In fact most people keep and carry guns because of police in-transit times.
Click to expand...

He wasn't under threat by Martin.

If Martin was trying to break into Zimmerman's house, sure.

Zimmerman CHOSE to pursue, thus putting himself in the circumstance. Zimmerman follows police orders, we would never know who these two guys are and neither of their lives would be over or ruined.
 
FilmFestGuy said:
He wasn't under threat by Martin.
Click to expand...

He didn't know that.

FilmFestGuy said:
Zimmerman CHOSE to pursue, thus putting himself in the circumstance. Zimmerman follows police orders, we would never know who these two guys are and neither of their lives would be over or ruined.
Click to expand...

He did follow the order. He said, "okay" and then you clearly hear a change in the way he's going because you can't hear the wind in the phone anymore.
 
Josie said:
He didn't know that.



He did follow the order. He said, "okay" and then you clearly hear a change in the way he's going because you can't hear the wind in the phone anymore.
Click to expand...

The wind was7 miles and hour and coming from the north.. It would have been blocked once GZ entered the cut thru.
 
Josie said:
He didn't know that.



He did follow the order. He said, "okay" and then you clearly hear a change in the way he's going because you can't hear the wind in the phone anymore.
Click to expand...

How could he have NOT known Martin wasn't a threat to him directly when he walked past him? Zimmerman doesn't "play cop," nothing happens.

Manslaughter. I think 2nd degree murder was a stretch too far, but Manslaughter - sure.
 
ric27 said:
You need evidence that Z punched, grabbed, or pushed M to entitle M to respond with force.

Unsure of what Z was pulling out of his pocket is NOT enough provocation

Holy ****.....you are ****ing tiresome with this crap

Give it a rest and go watch a vampire movie or some porn
Click to expand...
Cops use the "reached into his pocket for an unknown item" all the time to justify lethal police action against a suspect. It has even become known as suicide by police.
Get a cop to suspect you and on confrontation reach into an inside pocket. See how long it takes to be shot.
Trayvon didn't have a gun so he reacted with the only thing he had ... his bare hands.
 
FilmFestGuy said:
How could he have NOT known Martin wasn't a threat to him directly when he walked past him?
Click to expand...

I don't understand your question. You can tell what's going on in someone's head simply if they walk past you?
 
I never believed Z reached for his phone, what was he going to do, hit TM over the head with it?

Z was going for his gun. He brandished it and put his hand on it in a "don't frak with me" signal (dueling weiners after TM "put his hand in his waistband"?). The problem is homey didn't play, his flight/fight synapse kicked in and unfortunately door #2 came up.

I wonder if anyone here can deduce what was Z's "tell" on this little lie.

Any poker players here?
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom