Do you think Zimmerman will be convicted of murder?

@Cycloptichorn,

Cycloptichorn wrote:

His previous behavior does indeed qualify him for murder 2.

Second degree murder in Florida is essentially negligent homicide with extreme negligence. In order to qualify, it would have to be an unintentional shooting brought on by extremely reckless behavior by Zimmerman.

The worst case here would be the situation that you are presuming: that he provoked the confrontation, and then shot the kid. That scenario would count as manslaughter.

However, the evidence to back that scenario seems rather thin.

Cycloptichorn wrote:

He made a variety of aggressive and emotional statements about the defendant on the phone with cops, ignored their orders not to follow the kid,

It was not an actual order. But more to the point, where is the evidence that he kept following the kid after they suggested that he shouldn't do that?

Cycloptichorn wrote:

provoked a confrontation knowing he had a deadly weapon on hand, and used that weapon to kill the kid.

And where is the evidence that Zimmerman provoked the confrontation?

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Murder 2 is a reasonable crime to charge him with, given the circumstances - and his troubled past, something his admirers never seem to want to talk about.

Even if there were evidence proving that Zimmerman provoked the confrontation, that would only make it manslaughter.

For second degree murder in Florida it would have to be an accidental shooting due to extreme negligence.

1 Reply

@Cycloptichorn,

Sorry as he had no control of the funds it did not raised his ability to flee and the only justification for setting bail is to make it more likely that the person is not going to flee not to take away funds under control; of a third party to provide him with a legal defend!!!!!!!!!!!

2 Replies

@BillRM,

BillRM wrote:

Sorry as he had no control of the funds

How do you figure this is true?? He was caught on tape telling his wife to transfer the funds to another account. So, yeah, you're totally wrong - just like you were wrong about the second passport thing, that he was also caught on tape talking about. Do you just make **** up, or what?

Quote:

it did not raised his ability to flee and the only justification for setting bail is to make it more likely that the person is not going to flee not to take away funds under control; of a third party to provide him with a legal defend!!!!!!!!!!!

Totally false. Having a great deal of money hidden, that you lied to the judge about, and a second passport that you also didn't tell anyone about, makes it very likely that you can flee. Very likely.

Cycloptichorn

1 Reply

@Cycloptichorn,

Quote:

Um, that's how bail works. It was an appropriate action for the judge to take.

Um, no, that isn't right at all. The purpose of bail is to ensure the person returns when requested and the fact that Zimmerman did return with no more bail having been set than the original 150K is positive proof that no more was ever needed. Zimmerman could easily have left the country and there are probably other states which would have taken him, he has as good a justification for seeking political asylum as has ever existed in the world.

This judge has no other mandate or any other sort of justification for seeking bail beyond the original 150K and is basically behaving in a lawless fashion.

0 Replies

@Cycloptichorn,

Once more when his lawyer found out about the funds it was at once removed from his control and this condition existed long long before the second bail hearing so there was zero justification to raised his bail due to funds he no longer had any control over.

2 Replies

@Cycloptichorn,

Cycloptichorn wrote:

oralloy wrote:
They clearly raised the bail in response to him having more money than they originally thought.

Um, that's how bail works. It was an appropriate action for the judge to take.

Cycloptichorn

If that's how it works, it is a fundamentally unjust system that needs to be changed.

0 Replies

@Cycloptichorn,

Cycloptichorn wrote:

oralloy wrote:
Cycloptichorn wrote:
It's clear to me that he provoked a confrontation with the kid and then shot him to death when it went south.

Cycloptichorn

What evidence is there that Zimmerman provoked the confrontation?

Probably the fact that he was following the kid to begin with and continued to do so after being told not to.

Even if he did keep following the kid, that would not mean he provoked the confrontation.

But what evidence is there that he even kept following the kid?

Cycloptichorn wrote:

There's also the testimony of the girl Martin was on the phone with at the time he was attacked, who described the situation exactly as I have relayed it to you.

She could have been describing what was happening before Zimmerman was asked to stop following the kid.

Even if Zimmerman did keep following him, she was not on the line for the actual confrontation.

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Finally, we have common sense to consider - the idea that Martin spontaneously decided to assault Zimmerman, with no previous provocation whatsoever, is hard to swallow. What motive did he have for doing so?

Cycloptichorn

He clearly felt Zimmerman was a threat to him. He may have decided that the best defense was a good offense.

4 Replies

@oralloy,

oralloy wrote:

That's an Orwellian catch 22.

Throwing together two completely different literary references does not make you sound smart. It makes you sound dumb.

Catch-22 was written by Joseph Heller, not George Orwell. Orwell wrote books like 1984 and Animal Farm.

Catch-22 refers to a logical paradox.

Orwellian refers to totalitarian governments, surveillance, and propaganda.

1 Reply

@BillRM,

BillRM wrote:

Once more when his lawyer found out about the funds it was at once removed from his control and this condition existed long long before the second bail hearing so there was zero justification to raised his bail due to funds he no longer had any control over.

Oh, right. Zimmerman has hurt his case tremendously by lying to the judge and getting caught. Once you are a confirmed liar, the judge has zero reason to trust anything you say - it is entirely likely that Zimmerman has other sources of funding that he's still lying about.

Are you going to address the fact that you were totally wrong re: the passport thing? That it was found out because he was talking about it with his wife, and that he didn't voluntarily give it up???

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

@oralloy,

oralloy wrote:

But what evidence is there that he even kept following the kid?

I accept Zimmerman's own statement to be persuasive on that point.

Didn't you just state that you'd researched the case? And yet you continue to be ignorant of key pieces of evidence.

1 Reply

@oralloy,

Which is why the prosecutor will have to prove it at trial. Simply because you want to make your own assumptions without actually hearing the evidence doesn't mean the prosecution can't make the case.

1 Reply

@oralloy,

Quote:

He clearly felt Zimmerman was a threat to him. He may have decided that the best defense was a good offense.

Given that he was on his cell to his girlfriend he could had call 911 himself or had his girlfriend do so or call his house and have a family member come to him or......just keep walking to his home.

There was zero repeat zero justification in turning and trying to kill Zimmerman.

To sum up Zimmerman was breaking no laws that would had taken away his rights to self defense that night.

0 Replies

@BillRM,

He had no control of the funds?

Read the indictment of his wife for perjury. They moved money from one account to another including George being included in a phone call with his banker to allow his wife to have access to the funds. For you to argue he had no control of the funds shows you have no understanding of why the judge ruled the way he did.

1 Reply

@BillRM,

What? Let's just make up stuff and pretend other stuff never happened.

0 Replies

@oralloy,

Martins GF was on the phone with him at the time of the confrontation.

http://usnews.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/03/20/10774247-trayvon-martins-final-phone-call-he-said-this-man-was-watching-him?lite

Her testimony doesn't match the account that you would have us believe. Instead, it indicates that Martin was scared and trying to get away from the guy who was following him.

Cycloptichorn

1 Reply

@parados,

parados wrote:

He had no control of the funds?

Read the indictment of his wife for perjury. They moved money from one account to another including George being included in a phone call with his banker to allow his wife to have access to the funds. For you to argue he had no control of the funds shows you have no understanding of why the judge ruled the way he did.

I have to agree with this - Bill is clearly ignorant of several key facts in the case, yet feels perfectly justified in loudly proclaiming zimm's innocence. I just don't get why someone wouldn't put in 5 minutes of research before spouting off.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

@oralloy,

Quote:

But what evidence is there that he even kept following the kid?

You keep asking this oralloy but have you even bothered to look a map of where the shooting occurred compared to Zimmerman's phone call and his vehicle. The shooting occurred in a place that would require Zimmerman to not be returning to his vehicle. Why was he continuing down a path that would have put him in a position where he couldn't meet the police at any street?

The only way Zimmerman could have been attacked at the place of the shooting was if he was continuing to follow Martin.

1 Reply

@DrewDad,

DrewDad wrote:

oralloy wrote:
That's an Orwellian catch 22.

Throwing together two completely different literary references does not make you sound smart. It makes you sound dumb.

The fact that *you* get confused when two books get mentioned at the same time is no reflection on me.

DrewDad wrote:

Catch-22 was written by Joseph Heller, not George Orwell. Orwell wrote books like 1984 and Animal Farm.

So?

DrewDad wrote:

Catch-22 refers to a logical paradox.

Orwellian refers to totalitarian governments, surveillance, and propaganda.

That "two thoughts at the same time" thing trips you up every single time, doesn't it? Laughing

1 Reply

@oralloy,

Personally, I'm able to keep my two thoughts separate without conflating two ideas. That doesn't seem to be a skill you've mastered.

1 Reply

@parados,

parados wrote:

Which is why the prosecutor will have to prove it at trial. Simply because you want to make your own assumptions without actually hearing the evidence doesn't mean the prosecution can't make the case.

I've heard enough evidence to justify assuming that this was not a case of Depraved Heart Murder.

0 Replies

Do you think Zimmerman will be convicted of murder?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know