I would say who started the physical confrontation matters very much. If Martin started it, Zimmerman is pretty much innocent. If Zimmerman started it, then he should be charged with, in the least, manslaughter.
I wasn't sure how it would work. I read this the other day which is what made me think that manslaughter would be a possibility. http://legalinsurrection.com/2013/06/zimmerman-case-the-five-principles-of-the-law-of-self-defense/
They might want to hold off on the celebration until the jury renders a verdict. One thing I have learned over the years is that the trier of fact often renders a decision that you don't expect.
Manslaughter in most cases is an implication of something accidental or at most an unintended death. Murder 2 is what they charged him with because when he gave his statement he claimed the shooting as self defense. He didn't claim to have accidentally shot him. He intended to shoot him therefore the Murder 2 charges. If the jury is given the option of manslaughter and they follow the law, the prosecution would have to have shown that it was accidental. I'm sure the defense will take that over 2nd Degree, but I would bet they will also argue against it.
What White People Don't Understand About Rachel Jeantel Read more: http://globalgrind.com/news/what-wh...hel-jeantel-trayvon-martin-blog#ixzz2XZhT63et
This is an example of the exceptional solidarity that exists among American Blacks. There may not be anything like it in the world, certainly not Africa where tribal rivalries abound. I recall attending a Black History month celebration that included a panel discussion. The participants railed against racism, discrimination, and injustice. You would have thought they just exited the slave boats. It just so happened that I knew each one of them personally and they were all highly educated, very affluent, and mostly owned businesses or were professionals of some sort. None of them have ever experienced a moment of deprivation in their entire lives. Why did they act as if they had? Solidarity. What one American Black has ever experienced at any time in any place is the Black Experience. This why Rachel Jeantel is defended in the article when the fact her testimony was indefensible. You need a score card to keep up with the inconsistencies in her testimony. She is woefully uneducated, unsophisticated, and untrustworthy. But, she is Black, therefore, she is wonderful. I hate this lack of objectivity, this constant appeal to victimization. It is counterproductive in every respect. I love the Black people, I have been a civil rights advocate for years, but I don't like the constant whining and spinning of reality.
Zimmerman will probably walk because of the jury make-up. My problem with the whole thing is the kid is dead because Zimmerman wanted to play cop, by following the kid and not listening to the 911 dispatcher. This guy thought he was tough **** and confronted the kid for no reason. We will never know what started the fight, but we do know Zimmerman bit off more than he could chew. He shot the kid because his ass was getting kicked. If Zimmerman would have listen to 911, none of this would have happened.
You are a joke. I love how you group all Blacks together. Just because they are well-off now doesn't mean they didn't grow up experiencing those moments of deprivation. The reason they could relate is most blacks know someone in their lives who has or is going thru the struggle. Black people are harder on other blacks than other races. However, the reason they defend Rachel is because she is being attacked for no reason. She did not ask for this. Rachel is trying her best to tell the truth. So what if she is not the most eloquent speaker. She is a teenager and acts like many teenagers. Zimmerman killed the kid because he thought he was a cop and had the right to follow the confront. He did not. His ego wouldn't allow him to listen to the 911 operator. George got in over his head and the shot the kid because he was getting his ass beat. With the jury makeup, he will get off. Doesn't mean he wasn't at fault.
I do not agree. If Zimmerman walks, it will be because the prosecution based their case against Zimmerman on race rather than evidence of murder. As this case has played out in court, the prosecution has shown little evidence that seems to prove that Zimmerman is a cold-blooded, racist murderer. Instead, they have relied on their "star witness," Rachel Jeantel, who has proven to be nothing more than a fool. Other important witnesses for the prosecution have seemingly put the nail in the coffin of their own case.
The fact that they were successful, and even if they were from wealthy families doesn't mean they didn't experience discrimination many times in their lives. I think that would bother anyone.
I am not disagreeing with her because of her ineloquent speech. As a matter of fact, she speaks Creole at home, which limits her ability to speak English. That is understandable. What I do not understand is why you feel need to agree with everything the media says. Based on the testimony of several witnesses in court, not the media, Zimmerman was on the ground, and Trayvon Martin was on top of him pounding Zimmerman's head into the ground. The witness (I believe was a doctor) stated in court that Zimmerman's abrasions on his head came from being hit on the concrete.
I see what you're saying, but if his intent was to do harm but not necessarily to kill? Would that qualify? I'm just curious.
But other witnesses in court have said Zimmerman was on top of Martin. It could be that they were both on top at different times during the fight. The medical person said that she thought the cuts on GZ's head were from hitting the concrete because of what GZ told her, not her medical opinion. Not one witness has said they saw Martin bashing Zimmerman's head into the concrete. I'm not saying that any of that means Zimmerman is guilty, but just that it seems hard to say for sure what happened. For what it's worth, I found it hard as hell to listen to Jeantel's testimony. The whole thing was almost painful. I have no idea what the jurors will get out of that. She didn't come across as 100% honest about everything that's for sure.
It might but there would probably have to either be something brought up about it or the jury would have to come to that conclusion on their own (although that is possible). I actually posted that having not realized I missed a page and a half in the thread between times I looked at it. I read some of your posts on those pages and I think we are closer to being on the same page than I originally thought. I'm waiting to see what other evidence is brought out before I make a decision, but currently I am leaning towards him getting off. Not because I don't think he didn't do anything, but because the evidence I have seen so far, doesn't prove to me BARD that he committed 2nd degree murder.
This really isn't true. Most states have statues defining manslaughter that do not involve the words unintended or accidental. Manslaughter is generally found when there is culpability on the part of the defendant that just doesn't fit the legal definition of murder.
