The State of Florida vs George Zimmerman: The Trial

@cicerone imposter,

cicerone imposter wrote:

What David can't seem to get into his head is that just because anyone is charged with a crime doesn't mean they are guilty.

I didn't mean to get into the impeachment discussion because Firefly, the creator of this thread, explicitly asked us to stay on topic. But in the interest of shortening this sub-thread, let me point out what the word "impeachment" means, as applied to the Clinton impeachment.

In its article about impeachment, Wikipedia wrote:

Impeachment is a formal process in which an official is accused of unlawful activity, the outcome of which, depending on the country, may include the removal of that official from office as well as criminal or civil punishment. (Emphasis mine --- T.)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impeachment

Observe: a formal process in which the official is accused is enough to constitute impeachment. The accusation needn't actually be true, and the official needn't actually be removed or punished. So OmSigDavid is technically correct. Congress did impeach Clinton because it did start a formal process accusing him of perjury. David is getting a rise out of you by playing a word game: the word impeachment usually suggests to people that the official was found guilty and got sanctioned, But it doesn't actually mean that.

2 Replies

@Thomas,

Thanks for the clarification.

0 Replies

@Thomas,

I can agree with the definition of "impeachment." Case closed.

0 Replies

@parados,

parados wrote:

Just the act is enough under Florida law. There is no requirement of culpable negligence.

That's not what the jury instructions (RTF) say. They say that "[t]o prove the crime of Manslaughter,‭ ‬the State must prove the following two elements beyond a reasonable doubt:

‭(‬Victim‭)‬ is dead.

Give‭ ‬2a,‭ ‬2b,‭ ‬or‭ ‬2c depending upon allegations and proof.
a.‭ ‬(Defendant‭) ‬intentionally committed an‭ ‬act or acts that‭ caused the death of‭ ‬(victim‭)‬.

b.‭ ‬(Defendant‭) ‬intentionally‭ ‬procured an act that caused ‎the death of‭ (‬victim‭)‬.

c.‭ ‬The death of‭ (‬victim‭) ‬was caused by the culpable negligence of‭ (‬defendant‭)‬."

So yes, I over-snipped the instructions. But the truth remains that your list of things a reasonable person wouldn't do doesn't cover any element of manslaughter.

1 Reply

@Thomas,

Number 2 only requires ONE of the 3 choices.

1. The victim is dead
2.a. Zimmerman intentionally committed an act that caused Martin's death when he shot him.

b. and c. don't matter once a. is met.

1 Reply

@BillW,

I still go by,

Quote:

without lawful authority, physically asports (i.e., moves) another person without that other person's consent, with the intent to use the abduction in connection with some other nefarious objective.

Being a neighborhood watch person doesn't give them authority to break the laws of kidnapping. Zimmerman didn't have "any authority" to kidnap or control another person's freedom of movement; none.

0 Replies

@parados,

parados wrote:

Number 2 only requires ONE of the 3 choices.

True. I already conceded this point.

parados wrote:

1. The victim is dead
2.a. Zimmerman intentionally committed an act that caused Martin's death when he shot him.

The cause of Martin's death is that Zimmerman shot him. We agree that he shot him on purpose, though the purpose may (or may not) have been self-defense. So the question for the manslaughter charge becomes, was the purpose for which Zimmerman shot Martin justified or not? On this question, we can have a valid discussion But your list of things a reasonable person wouldn't do does nothing to either establish Zimmerman's intent or refute self-defense. Your list is simply irrelevant.

1 Reply

@Thomas,

It becomes relevant when you start looking at self defense. Martin wasn't committing a crime so Zimmerman's self defense claim centers on the force used and the circumstances created that made him think he needed to use deadly force. If Zimmerman created the circumstances through acts that weren't reasonable then his argument for self defense is weakened under the law.

3 Replies

@parados,

using that logic everyone who participates in a yelling match at the pool table in a bar is criminally liable when one guy from the squabble stabs another later in the parking lot...after all they all helped escalate the conflict.

no, the one who does the bad act is liable for the bad act, not everyone who participated in the lead up to the bad act.

2 Replies

@parados,

Nothing says no crime was committed like punching someone in the face for no reason.

2 Replies

@Baldimo,

I'm sure you'll be okay with a total stranger following you around for no reason at all!

Especially if you're black.

1 Reply

@cicerone imposter,

A total stranger following me around doesn't bother me and wouldn't make me turn around and start a fight with them. My children who happen to be half black wouldn't do it either. Since the Martin shooting I have had a talk with my kids.

Don't start a fight with someone you don't know. Not everyone is out to get you, and you don't go walking around outside by yourself when the sun goes down. We live in a nice neighborhood but they are still not permitted to be outside after dark by themselves. It is called the buddy system. Less things happen to you when you use the buddy system.

1 Reply

@hawkeye10,

hawkeye10 wrote:

using that logic everyone who participates in a yelling match at the pool table in a bar is criminally liable when one guy from the squabble stabs another later in the parking lot...after all they all helped escalate the conflict.

Being followed at night, in the rain, by someone you've never met is a different prospect, though.

I'm well aware when I'm in a parking lot at night that women do not feel safe, and give them a wide berth so that I don't inadvertently frighten them.

In this case, Zimmerman meant to intimidate and/or scare Martin. When you deliberately provoke someone, you should be prepared for the consequences.

1 Reply

@Baldimo,

Remind me again who was walking around with Zimmerman - oh yeah, I forgot - Zimmerman wasn't black, so he could be walking alone. Trayvon and your kids are black, so they have to have the buddy system or they can legally be murdered.

Seems fair........ Rolling Eyes

1 Reply

@DrewDad,

zimmerman is not charged with stalking or harassing which I take to mean that even these dreamy prosecutors did not think they could sell the charges, and we dont know who provoked the altercation.

I have heard of no evidence that zimmerman meant to do anything more than he said he did, which was to keep tabs on a possible bad guy in his neighborhood and try to ascertain if he was a bad guy...noble acts both.

1 Reply

@BillW,

If that is all you got out of what I said then you are an idiot. I encourage the buddy system for everyone, but since I can only control my own children then that is who gets the advice.

0 Replies

@Baldimo,

Baldimo wrote:

Nothing says no crime was committed like punching someone in the face for no reason.

Not in evidence except through Zimmerman. Zimmerman lies, self serving lies. You can't trust anything Zimmerman says that is especially self serving, therefore, this is a false statement you made.

Two for two, can't trust anything Baldy says. See how court stuff goes.......

1 Reply

I am loving the lengths of idiocy people here will go to in the effort to make zimmerman guilty of a crime.....it is being argued that if one purposefully puts themselves in the presence of a particular person, and if a fight breaks out, then the one who instigated the meeting by definition instigated the fight. it is a looney tunes argument.

2 Replies

@hawkeye10,

People are expressing their opinion based on the evidence presented in court, and how they perceive them. There's nothing wrong with that process, and it's the basis for any discussion.

If you wish to disagree, do so from what you have perceived to be the relevant issues of this case.

Having served in a criminal trial, I'm not sure how the jury will decide this case. That doesn't mean people can't express their opinion; you included.

1 Reply

@cicerone imposter,

Quote:

That doesn't mean people can't express their opinion; you included.

0 Replies

The State of Florida vs George Zimmerman: The Trial

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know