By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - General Discussion - Breaking News: George Zimmerman Found Not Guilty!

S.T.A.G.E. on 16 July 2013
Max King of the Wild said:
S.T.A.G.E. said:
Max King of the Wild said:


I guess you weren't watching CNN where a bunch of star lawyers were talking about why a jury would generally ask for a definition so late in the deliberation process, correct? 

I never contradicted myself. This case could've gone either way, and as I have attested to, second degree murder cannot be proven with such little facts, especially with people corroborating what little facts there were. I have been a juror myself, so I am not new to the ropes. Every lawyer on the panel stated (as well as I in another post) that if the stated wanted to charge Zimmerman with manslaughter as a primary charge instead of second degree murder, they would never have had to prove intent (ie: self defense or malicious). The stated chose to demonize Zimmerman in such a struggle to get the case to even be put on. I understand Stanford is a biased area and wouldn't have even started an investigation, but the fact remains that they got cocky, just because of the media attention. It serves them right.

Now....pay attention:

Manslaughter-

"The unjustifiable, inexcusable, and intentional killing of a human being without deliberation, premeditation, and malice. The unlawful killing of a human being without any deliberation, which may be involuntary, in the commission of a lawful act without due caution and circumspection.

Manslaughter is a distinct crime and is not considered a lesser degree of murder. The essential distinction between the two offenses is that malice aforethought must be present for murder, whereas it must be absent for manslaughter. Manslaughter is not as serious a crime as murder. On the other hand, it is not a justifiable or excusable killing for which little or no punishment is imposed."

-Legal-Dictionary (From freedictionary.com)

That girl is not Trayvons girlfriend. 

Wait....leave your personal feelings for Trayvon out of this, you don't know him and neither do I. Stay objective here.

In highschool, many kids have that same record. Obama smoked weed who cares? Bush smoked weed, was a drunk and horrible driver? Did that ever stop  him from being president? Do not assume someones purpose in life...anyones. Zimmermans no angel when it comes to his record as well provoking cops into a fight in 2006, but I didn't have to talk about that. I was trying to keep this objective. I cannot stand Nancy Grace, but in her prosecutor ways she dug that up and other things on Zimmerman if you listen to multiple sources. She was riding the prosecution for doing such a horrible job.

Yes lets take legal experts word on what was going on in the jury room that they had no clue was going on... or lets listen to a juror.

An initial vote was divided. Three of the jurors first voted Zimmerman was guilty, while three voted he was not guilty, she said. Juror B37 was among those who believed he was not guilty from the start.

"There was a couple of them in there that wanted to find him guilty of something and after hours and hours and hours of deliberating over the law, and reading it over and over and over again, we decided there's just no way, other place to go," she said.

Jurors were not identified by name during the trial, which sparked a broad debate about gun laws and race in America.

The juror said she did not believe Zimmerman profiled Martin, who was African-American, because of the color of his skin.


The word of one juror is just as good as any other. The point of having many jurors creates a solid base for a proper verdict because deliberation must run its course. As I said, I would've found him not guilty of second degree murder myself. Based on the facts presented, there was no malicious intent shown. If it was a primary charge of manslaughter it would be another story. Based on a legal gameplan, if it was primary charge of manslaughter things would've been different, this is my point, think about it.... I gave you the legal definition again, read it once more. Manslaughter would've never taken this long to prove, but if found guilty Zimmerman wouldn't have stayed in jail as long as second degree murder if you can prove it. The state swung for the fences and paid for it.

In your attempt to discredit professionals who have been doing it for probably longer than we've been living in their experience, most of them were saying acquittal as well based on the facts. 

Fact:

Mark O'mara is the new Johnny Cochran. That guy is just an amazing lawyer. People are going to be studying his defense tactics for years to come, just like they did Cochran.



Around the Network
Max King of the Wild on 16 July 2013
S.T.A.G.E. said:


The word of one juror is just as good as any other. The point of having many jurors creates a solid base for a proper verdict because deliberation must run its course. As I said, I would've found him not guilty of second degree murder myself. Based on the facts presented, there was no malicious intent shown. In primary charge of manslaughter is another story. Based on a legal gameplan, if it was primary charge of manslaughter things would've been different, this is my point. 

In your attempt to discredit professionals who have been doing it for probably longer than we've been living in their experience, most of them were saying acquittal as well based on the facts. 

Fact:

Mark O'mara is the new Johnny Cochran. That guy is just an amazing lawyer. People are going to be studying his defense tactics for years to come, just like they did Cochran.

The word of one juror saying the vot was split three to three. Meaning they never leaned in the direction of manslaughter like I said. Apparently they asked for clarification because of one hold out and she changed her mind. Like I said they were never considering manslaughter. I should clarify they never considered it as in voting that way. Obviously they needed to consider it even just vote



S.T.A.G.E. on 16 July 2013
Max King of the Wild said:
S.T.A.G.E. said:


The word of one juror is just as good as any other. The point of having many jurors creates a solid base for a proper verdict because deliberation must run its course. As I said, I would've found him not guilty of second degree murder myself. Based on the facts presented, there was no malicious intent shown. In primary charge of manslaughter is another story. Based on a legal gameplan, if it was primary charge of manslaughter things would've been different, this is my point. 

In your attempt to discredit professionals who have been doing it for probably longer than we've been living in their experience, most of them were saying acquittal as well based on the facts. 

Fact:

Mark O'mara is the new Johnny Cochran. That guy is just an amazing lawyer. People are going to be studying his defense tactics for years to come, just like they did Cochran.

The word of one juror saying the vot was split three to three. Meaning they never leaned in the direction of manslaughter like I said. Apparently they asked for clarification because of one hold out and she changed her mind. Like I said they were never considering manslaughter


Do you mean never leaned to manslaughter as a primary charge or a lesser charge? I never said he couldn't have been found innocent, either. My point was the probability was higher for him to be found guilty because it fit the bill for the case. On a lesser charge you can still overlook it. Remember manslaughter was on the table but was never pushed until the closing arguments wasn't. Can't blame them.



timmah on 16 July 2013
S.T.A.G.E. said:
Max King of the Wild said:

The word of one juror saying the vot was split three to three. Meaning they never leaned in the direction of manslaughter like I said. Apparently they asked for clarification because of one hold out and she changed her mind. Like I said they were never considering manslaughter


Do you mean never leaned to manslaughter as a primary charge or a lesser charge? I never said he couldn't have been found innocent, either. My point was the probability was higher for him to be found guilty because it fit the bill for the case. On a lesser charge you can still overlook it. Remember manslaughter was on the table but was never pushed until the closing arguments wasn't. Can't blame them.

Even with Manslaughter as the primary charge, if the jurors believed that Zimmerman legitimately feared for his life at the moment he shot Trayvon (which it appears they did), he still would have walked as that would classify as legal self defense under the law. The prosecution might have had a slightly better shot at a conviction, but the cards would still have been stacked against them based on the evidence. There's a reason the police didn't want to charge him in the first place, the case against him was always very weak when you look at the laws on the books.



bluesinG on 16 July 2013

In contrast, this is what happens when a black man shoots an unarmed teenager who comes to his house and threatens him and his son:

Man Convicted for Shooting Teenager

A Suffolk County jury on Saturday night found a black man guilty of manslaughter for shooting of an unarmed white teenager outside the man’s house last year, ending a racially charged trial. The jury began deliberating on Wednesday, and on Friday indicated that it was deadlocked and racked with discord. But late Saturday night, it delivered its verdict: The man, John H. White, 54, was guilty of the second-degree manslaughter charge that prosecutors had sought, and of criminal possession of a weapon. Mr. White was allowed to remain free until sentencing, when he will face a maximum term of 5 to 15 years in prison.

Mr. White was convicted of shooting Daniel Cicciaro, 17, point-blank in the face on Aug. 9, 2006. Daniel and several friends had left a party and showed up Mr. White’s house just after 11 p.m. to challenge his son Aaron, then 19, to a fight, and had used threats, profanities and racial epithets. Mr. White awoke and grabbed a loaded Beretta pistol he kept in the garage of his house in Miller Place, a predominantly white hamlet on Long Island.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/23/nyregion/23trial.html



Around the Network
timmah on 16 July 2013
bluesinG said:

In contrast, this is what happens when a black man shoots an unarmed teenager who comes to his house and threatens him and his son:

Man Convicted for Shooting Teenager

A Suffolk County jury on Saturday night found a black man guilty of manslaughter for shooting of an unarmed white teenager outside the man’s house last year, ending a racially charged trial.

The jury began deliberating on Wednesday, and on Friday indicated that it was deadlocked and racked with discord. But late Saturday night, it delivered its verdict: The man, John H. White, 54, was guilty of the second-degree manslaughter charge that prosecutors had sought, and of criminal possession of a weapon. Mr. White was allowed to remain free until sentencing, when he will face a maximum term of 5 to 15 years in prison.

Mr. White was convicted of shooting Daniel Cicciaro, 17, point-blank in the face on Aug. 9, 2006. Daniel and several friends had left a party and showed up Mr. White’s house just after 11 p.m. to challenge his son Aaron, then 19, to a fight, and had used threats, profanities and racial epithets. Mr. White awoke and grabbed a loaded Beretta pistol he kept in the garage of his house in Miller Place, a predominantly white hamlet on Long Island.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/23/nyregion/23trial.html

Was he being beaten or attacked at the time he shot the teen? Nope. Did the trial take place in Florida (which has strong self-defense laws) or New York (which has weak self defense laws)? Oh... New York. The jury has to consider the laws in the state, had this been in Florida, he would very likely have gotten off on the 'Stand your ground' law. No such law exists in New York, so that defense could not be made. Very different story, but good job grasping at straws. Seriously, use some reasoning when trying to compare stories. Yeesh.

Oh, and note that the prosecution went for second degree manslaughter in this case and didn't over-reach for Murder 2 like in the Zimmerman case.



Dark_Lord_2008 on 16 July 2013

Thank god justice prevailed and this man was found innocent of all charges. An emotional trial by media and a witch hunt of Zimmerman shooting dead an apparent innocent African-American 17 year old teenage boy. Trayvon was made out to be this holier than thou golden child/angel who did no wrong. Thank god the judge and the jury looked at all the evidence presented and made the right decision to find Zimmerman innocent of all charges.



bluesinG on 16 July 2013
timmah said:
bluesinG said:

In contrast, this is what happens when a black man shoots an unarmed teenager who comes to his house and threatens him and his son:

Man Convicted for Shooting Teenager

A Suffolk County jury on Saturday night found a black man guilty of manslaughter for shooting of an unarmed white teenager outside the man’s house last year, ending a racially charged trial. The jury began deliberating on Wednesday, and on Friday indicated that it was deadlocked and racked with discord. But late Saturday night, it delivered its verdict: The man, John H. White, 54, was guilty of the second-degree manslaughter charge that prosecutors had sought, and of criminal possession of a weapon. Mr. White was allowed to remain free until sentencing, when he will face a maximum term of 5 to 15 years in prison.

Mr. White was convicted of shooting Daniel Cicciaro, 17, point-blank in the face on Aug. 9, 2006. Daniel and several friends had left a party and showed up Mr. White’s house just after 11 p.m. to challenge his son Aaron, then 19, to a fight, and had used threats, profanities and racial epithets. Mr. White awoke and grabbed a loaded Beretta pistol he kept in the garage of his house in Miller Place, a predominantly white hamlet on Long Island.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/23/nyregion/23trial.html

Was he being beaten or attacked at the time he shot the teen? Nope. Did the trial take place in Florida (which has strong self-defense laws) or New York (which has weak self defense laws)? Oh... New York. The jury has to consider the laws in the state, had this been in Florida, he would very likely have gotten off on the 'Stand your ground' law. No such law exists in New York, so that defense could not be made. Very different story, but good job grasping at straws. Seriously, use some reasoning when trying to compare stories. Yeesh.

Of course I understand the legal differences between Florida and New York. But morally/ethically, do you think that both Zimmerman and White are guilty, neither are guilty, or only one is guilty?

Personally, I think that both are guilty.



Max King of the Wild on 16 July 2013
bluesinG said:

In contrast, this is what happens when a black man shoots an unarmed teenager who comes to his house and threatens him and his son:

Man Convicted for Shooting Teenager

A Suffolk County jury on Saturday night found a black man guilty of manslaughter for shooting of an unarmed white teenager outside the man’s house last year, ending a racially charged trial. The jury began deliberating on Wednesday, and on Friday indicated that it was deadlocked and racked with discord. But late Saturday night, it delivered its verdict: The man, John H. White, 54, was guilty of the second-degree manslaughter charge that prosecutors had sought, and of criminal possession of a weapon. Mr. White was allowed to remain free until sentencing, when he will face a maximum term of 5 to 15 years in prison.

Mr. White was convicted of shooting Daniel Cicciaro, 17, point-blank in the face on Aug. 9, 2006. Daniel and several friends had left a party and showed up Mr. White’s house just after 11 p.m. to challenge his son Aaron, then 19, to a fight, and had used threats, profanities and racial epithets. Mr. White awoke and grabbed a loaded Beretta pistol he kept in the garage of his house in Miller Place, a predominantly white hamlet on Long Island.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/23/nyregion/23trial.html



Completely different and irrelevant. Please dont use logical fallacies to fuel and ignite racial debate that isn't there. Im disgusted at people like this trying to make a point using completely different facts.

And if you really don't see the difference then here it is. In self defense case you have a duty to try to retreat before resorting to violence. Except in Florida due to stand your own ground. However, George was being beaten on the ground so he couldn't have retreated even if it was availble to him so he meets the criteria in other states of being able to use self defense. On top of that it needs to be reasonable that the person felt their life was in danger. Zimmerman was being physically assaulted. The other guy seems to be verbally assaulted which shouldn't have happened but is not life threatening. Also, the guy didn't even try to call 911 (or at least it isn't noted)... man... people like you piss me off



S.T.A.G.E. on 16 July 2013
timmah said:
S.T.A.G.E. said:


Do you mean never leaned to manslaughter as a primary charge or a lesser charge? I never said he couldn't have been found innocent, either. My point was the probability was higher for him to be found guilty because it fit the bill for the case. On a lesser charge you can still overlook it. Remember manslaughter was on the table but was never pushed until the closing arguments wasn't. Can't blame them.

Even with Manslaughter as the primary charge, if the jurors believed that Zimmerman legitimately feared for his life at the moment he shot Trayvon (which it appears they did), he still would have walked as that would classify as legal self defense under the law. The prosecution might have had a slightly better shot at a conviction, but the cards would still have been stacked against them based on the evidence. There's a reason the police didn't want to charge him in the first place, the case against him was always very weak when you look at the laws on the books.


If this case was manslaughter as a main charge, it wouldn't have taken this long to come up with a verdict, guilty or innocent. Look up the legal definition. The state had nothing on Zimmerman so they threw manslaughter and child abuse at the court since a lesser charge of it was on the table, but it was too little too late. Im talking legal gameplans here...in the end as innocent or guilty as you believe him to be its all about the playbook. There were prosecutors across the country yelling dumbass at the State of Florida. You see....you're arguing for voluntary manslaughter which much like second degree murder has the burden of proof of malicious intent.

If you look at the definition of manslaughter, there are like two types of manslaughter and two subtypes. Zimmerman's type is what is known as involuntary manslaughter under the subtype culpable negligence. Its a lesser offense than voluntary, but it would be a very strong case. 

American law is about the way you play the system. If you have a good lawyer, they can play it. Thats all I am saying.