[BJWilliams]

The question isnt whether or not he killed him (he certainly did), its the matter of what was the intent behind it. If it was legitimately a defense maneuver, then of course no charges should be filed. If it was "with malice", then Id file charges.

[jcmanson]

The question isnt whether or not he killed him (he certainly did), its the matter of what was the intent behind it. If it was legitimately a defense maneuver, then of course no charges should be filed. If it was "with malice", then Id file charges.

Thanks for clearing it all up Beej

[BJWilliams]

Sarcasm duly noted manson...its just that when both jbock and LUconn talked about how he killed him, it had me thinking about it...I think my mom told me once that to kill means to murder with malice in the Hebrew or something (or to murder was to kill with malice I forget). I think that is the one thing that will be the linchpin as to whether charges will be filed or not.

[jbock13]

Bottom line is you're right BJ.

With malice is murder. Without intent is manslaughter. In self defense is no crime, unless you live in the Democrat States of America.

[LUconn]

I believe when claiming self defense, the onus is on the defense to prove that to be true.

[ALUmnus]

It's not because he was following him around. It's because he killed him.

That doesnt make it a crime though. Not all killings are murder. There is a difference.

But it doesn't have to be murder to be a crime. Unless there's a reliable witness, this is all he-said/he-said, with one of the "he"s being dead. So all this talk is just kinda fruitless until the investigation is over.

[LUconn]

it is pointless other than interesting discussion. I'm mainly just annoyed at everybody on the right being pro-Zimmerman just because they're anti-racebaiting.

[jbock13]

I believe when claiming self defense, the onus is on the defense to prove that to be true.

What basis do you rest that on? So he's guilty until proven innocent?

Nobody is pro-Zimmerman.

[LUconn]

no, because he's not being charged with "not self defense". He would be charged with murder, manslaughter, or whatever. He's innocent of that until proven guilty. His defense would be to try to prove it was self defense. It's not like we assume all murders were defending themselves until the prosecution can prove otherwise. We just legally assume they didn't do it in the first place.


I'm not sure if this is an accurate source but it seems legit
http://www.lectlaw.com/def/d030.htm

When there is a mutual combat upon a sudden quarrel both parties are the aggressors, and if in the fight one is killed it will be manslaughter at least, unless the survivor can prove two things: 1st. That before the mortal stroke was given be had refused any further combat, and had retreated as far as he could with safety; and 2d. That he killed his adversary from necessity, to avoid his own destruction.

Seems applicable and reasonable. You got yourself into this mess that could have been avoided. Since you were an aggressor, prove that you needed to kill him.

[jbock13]

LUConn, the problem is that every state has different thresholds for proving self defense. In Florida in Texas, burgulary is in most cases grounds for self defense through deadly force. Whereas in Virginia, you have to be threatened with deadly force in a home invasion, to respond likewise (which is dumb).

Zimmerman was wrong to follow him, probably. But shouldn't Martin have called the cops if someone is following him? Instead, he likely fought with Zimmerman after realizing he was being followed. Martin was likely winning this fight, and by some accounts, Martin found his gun, and threatened Zimmerman's life. Zimmerman, when able, pulled out his gun and fired only once, not multiple times.

If, and who honestly knows but this is just my guess, IF this were true, that is not a crime in the state of Florida.

[RubberMallet]

Instead, he likely fought with Zimmerman after realizing he was being followed. Martin was likely winning this fight, and by some accounts, Martin found his gun, and threatened Zimmerman's life. Zimmerman, when able, pulled out his gun and fired only once, not multiple times.

pfff this is the best post in this thread in regards to hilarity.

[jbock13]

Instead, he likely fought with Zimmerman after realizing he was being followed. Martin was likely winning this fight, and by some accounts, Martin found his gun, and threatened Zimmerman's life. Zimmerman, when able, pulled out his gun and fired only once, not multiple times.

pfff this is the best post in this thread in regards to hilarity.

huh? It makes perfect sense in regards to what we have to go on.

[RubberMallet]

Instead, he likely fought with Zimmerman after realizing he was being followed. Martin was likely winning this fight, and by some accounts, Martin found his gun, and threatened Zimmerman's life. Zimmerman, when able, pulled out his gun and fired only once, not multiple times.

pfff this is the best post in this thread in regards to hilarity.

huh? It makes perfect sense in regards to what we have to go on.

he "likely"? you have no idea what "likely" happened. you just concocted one of many 1000000 possibilities. in reality, zimmerman never approaches the guy, chances are slightly better that neither dies.

[jbock13]

Alright. Well let's all just live in your idealistic cocoon, instead of actually investigating.

[thepostman]

Even if charges are filed I have no doubt Zimmerman will be aquitted. There is simply no hard evidence proving one thing or another. This is central florida. If Casey Anthony can get off then Zimmerman, who has a much better case, can get off.

Of course I am not sure he did anything illegal so I don't think it can really be considered "getting off"

I think Zimmerman is/was an idiot but being an idiot isn't a crime if that was the case there would be a special cell for BJ and Jbock

[RubberMallet]

Alright. Well let's all just live in your idealistic cocoon, instead of actually investigating.

ok detective. we all have the same access to the same information you do. you aren't doing any more investigation into this case than anyone else. with every issue, you constantly spew "I ACTUALLY DO RESEARCH HERRR DRRRRP" nonsense. your posts aren't any more insightful than anyone elses. actually all you seem to do is parrot something you've read somewhere else. your posts scream of reddit nonsense and we all think its hilarious. an idealistic cocoon? what are you? 20?

[RubberMallet]

Even if charges are filed I have no doubt Zimmerman will be aquitted. There is simply no hard evidence proving one thing or another. This is central florida. If Casey Anthony can get off then Zimmerman, who has a much better case, can get off.

Of course I am not sure he did anything illegal so I don't think it can really be considered "getting off"

I think Zimmerman is/was an idiot but being an idiot isn't a crime if that was the case there would be a special cell for BJ and Jbock

there is no possible way to prove realistically anything. which is the DA's problem. guys are convicted in florida for silly things all the time, just like they get off all the time. this one would really be a crapshoot. which is why i think the DA is backing off. they don't like bringing charges on cases where they don't feel like they can win it. DA's aren't interested in justice in most cases, just in their record.

[jbock13]

Alright. Well let's all just live in your idealistic cocoon, instead of actually investigating.

what are you? 20?

Dang you're good...

[RubberMallet]

lol

[jbock13]

We'll have to agree to disagree. Based on what I've pieced together, that's my guess as to what happened.

[Humble_Opinion]

It's not because he was following him around. It's because he killed him. The following him around aspect just shows the state of mind. He assumed Martin was a danger to the neighborhood yet he still pursued him. I understand you feeling that it was in self defense, and I think that is a very likely scenario, but Zimmerman was putting himself into that situation. I think that's worth an involuntary manslaughter charge or something to let a jury sort it out.


On the flip side, what if you were being followed around at night by a weird dude with a gun? Would you defend yourself?

I think this is a situation where most folks (conservatives, republicans, etc.) are quick to defend Zimmerman just because all of the racebaiters like Sharpton and Jackson have taken up this as their cause.

First of all, there is no evidence whatsoever that Trayvon knew anything about Zimmerman carrying a gun. Second, you're making it seem as though Zimmerman was following Trayvon and had eyes on his target the whole time, when in actuality it has been proven that Zimmerman lost him, as he says on the recorded call with the police dispatcher. At that point he gives the last known address and according to his account he began the walk back to his car. Now do we know for sure that this happend? No... but you can't sit there and make statements such as the ones you just made.

Also, I haven't heard anyone on the "right" say that Zimmerman is innocent. Everyone I've heard says that these matters take time and that people should refrain from making judgments based on what little evidence is available to the public at this point. This keeping in line with our current laws of due process and innocence until proven guilty. It also keeps people from profiting off of such events, like the Justice Brothers and Farrakhan. From the beginning, the media manufactured and manipulated the facts to turn this into a white vs. black hate crime by: 1) Depicting Trayvon as a little kid with the eyes of an angel 2) Depicting Zimmerman as a criminal 3) Depicting Zimmerman as a white racist 4) Automatically assuming that the individual yelling HELP on the 911 call was Trayvon 5) Distorting the dispatch call and making it seem as though Zimmerman was profiling 6) Putting out stories that Zimmerman used a racial slur in the call, when a little enhancement proves this was false 7) Stating that the police did not take Zimmerman into custody (after which the video is released showing him in cuffs going to the precinct) Trying to invite people to assume that the police had manufactured the report that Zimmerman was not injured because they couldn't see his injuries on grainy video at the precinct, when in fact, after a little enhancement - lacerations are clearly seen on the back of his head. etc. etc...

So far mostly everything that has been used by the media to drum this up into something it's not (including the conviction of Zimmerman in the public square) has been proven false. Does this mean that Zimmerman is indeed innocent? No it does not... All I'm saying is give it time and let the process play out.

[PAmedic]

which is why i think the DA is backing off. they don't like bringing charges on cases where they don't feel like they can win it. DA's aren't interested in justice in most cases, just in their record.

Right on brother.

This is the single most accurate statement in the entire thread.

the reason being: most, if not all, seek employment in the private (defense counsel) sector after they've gained experience.

[jbock13]

He'll be charged with something I assume, because it's very likely the prosecutor wants to make a name for herself.

Told ya.

http://abcnews.go.com/US/george-zimmerm ... 4X-NBw2H5k

This has no chance in court. And if they win, God help our nation. We've lost it.

Zimmerman, 28, a white Hispanic neighborhood watch captain, shot and killed Martin, who was 17 and black, on Feb. 26 after following the teenager for several minutes.

Just make sure we emphasize the fact that he's white. Even though he's hispanic.

[RubberMallet]

you predicted that he'd be charged with something? you certainly have your finger on the pulse of the nation.

[jbock13]

You bet (I get the sarcasm)

There's no way in [heaven] you can prove 2nd degree murder in this case. Should be fun to watch when I'm not busy watching Rays games all summer. And even better yet maybe I'll be in Tampa while it happens!