Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
OT Does the charge against Zimmerman fit the crime?
0 views
Skip to first unread message
theget
May 19, 2012, 7:34:38 PM5/19/12
to
http://www.miamiherald.com/2012/05/19/2806555/evidence-against-zimmerman-lacking.html
According to the article an element of second degree murder must
include malice on the part of Zimmerman.
The article quotes a former prosecutor who is now a defense attorney,
a former prosecutor and a defense attorney, who all say that they
don't see evidence of malice.
The article doesn't explicitly quote each of those individuals as
using the word malice. I've been a little loose with the word.
It's starting to seem to me that Zimmerman will probably not be
convicted, perhaps not even going to trial, unless the prosecution
charges him with some other crime.
Although, I'm not even sure that might do it. I think it's possible
that Zimmerman could defend himself against a charge of murder even
with out a stand your ground law. It's hard to retreat when you're
being beaten up and maybe having your head hit against the pavement
when someone is on top of you.
I've heard that Zimmerman waived his right to a speedy trial. I
haven't seen any indication as to why, but I'm wondering if they're
all just hoping for the attention to die down and then they'll work
out a quiet deal, maybe for a misdemeanor or something. Or maybe
nothing. Thoughts?
If it does go to trial as a second degree case and he's acquitted I
wonder if he'll sue for malicious prosecution.
According to the article an element of second degree murder must
include malice on the part of Zimmerman.
The article quotes a former prosecutor who is now a defense attorney,
a former prosecutor and a defense attorney, who all say that they
don't see evidence of malice.
The article doesn't explicitly quote each of those individuals as
using the word malice. I've been a little loose with the word.
It's starting to seem to me that Zimmerman will probably not be
convicted, perhaps not even going to trial, unless the prosecution
charges him with some other crime.
Although, I'm not even sure that might do it. I think it's possible
that Zimmerman could defend himself against a charge of murder even
with out a stand your ground law. It's hard to retreat when you're
being beaten up and maybe having your head hit against the pavement
when someone is on top of you.
I've heard that Zimmerman waived his right to a speedy trial. I
haven't seen any indication as to why, but I'm wondering if they're
all just hoping for the attention to die down and then they'll work
out a quiet deal, maybe for a misdemeanor or something. Or maybe
nothing. Thoughts?
If it does go to trial as a second degree case and he's acquitted I
wonder if he'll sue for malicious prosecution.
LGi...@gmail.com
May 20, 2012, 12:03:31 AM5/20/12
to
On Sat, 19 May 2012 16:34:38 -0700 (PDT), theget
<the...@bigmailbox.net> wrote:
>http://www.miamiherald.com/2012/05/19/2806555/evidence-against-zimmerman-lacking.html
>
>According to the article an element of second degree murder must
>include malice on the part of Zimmerman.
>
>The article quotes a former prosecutor who is now a defense attorney,
>a former prosecutor and a defense attorney, who all say that they
>don't see evidence of malice.
Then they need new glasses. The malice is that Zimmerman flet
<the...@bigmailbox.net> wrote:
>http://www.miamiherald.com/2012/05/19/2806555/evidence-against-zimmerman-lacking.html
>
>According to the article an element of second degree murder must
>include malice on the part of Zimmerman.
>
>The article quotes a former prosecutor who is now a defense attorney,
>a former prosecutor and a defense attorney, who all say that they
>don't see evidence of malice.
Trayvon Martin was up to no good and would get away with it.
>It's starting to seem to me that Zimmerman will probably not be
>convicted, perhaps not even going to trial, unless the prosecution
>charges him with some other crime.
electric chair.
>
>Although, I'm not even sure that might do it. I think it's possible
>that Zimmerman could defend himself against a charge of murder even
>with out a stand your ground law. It's hard to retreat when you're
>being beaten up and maybe having your head hit against the pavement
>when someone is on top of you.
Martin did not.
>If it does go to trial as a second degree case and he's acquitted I
>wonder if he'll sue for malicious prosecution.
theget
May 20, 2012, 1:49:12 AM5/20/12
to
On May 20, 12:03 am, LGi...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Sat, 19 May 2012 16:34:38 -0700 (PDT), theget
>
> <the...@bigmailbox.net> wrote:
> >http://www.miamiherald.com/2012/05/19/2806555/evidence-against-zimmer...
> On Sat, 19 May 2012 16:34:38 -0700 (PDT), theget
>
> <the...@bigmailbox.net> wrote:
>
> >According to the article an element of second degree murder must
> >include malice on the part of Zimmerman.
>
> >The article quotes a former prosecutor who is now a defense attorney,
> >a former prosecutor and a defense attorney, who all say that they
> >don't see evidence of malice.
>
> Then they need new glasses. The malice is that Zimmerman flet
> Trayvon Martin was up to no good and would get away with it.
It is possible to hate someone and to kill them without malice.
> >According to the article an element of second degree murder must
> >include malice on the part of Zimmerman.
>
> >The article quotes a former prosecutor who is now a defense attorney,
> >a former prosecutor and a defense attorney, who all say that they
> >don't see evidence of malice.
>
> Then they need new glasses. The malice is that Zimmerman flet
> Trayvon Martin was up to no good and would get away with it.
However, I don't assume that what you claim is correct.
>
> >It's starting to seem to me that Zimmerman will probably not be
> >convicted, perhaps not even going to trial, unless the prosecution
> >charges him with some other crime.
>
> Zimmernan should be tried for first degree murder and fry in the
> electric chair.
Right. Because after all, sticking to the law is a pain, so much
> >It's starting to seem to me that Zimmerman will probably not be
> >convicted, perhaps not even going to trial, unless the prosecution
> >charges him with some other crime.
>
> Zimmernan should be tried for first degree murder and fry in the
> electric chair.
easier to just... wait. Why bother.
I think you might prefer a society where laws are more fungible.
Where laws don't have to be defined and if the mob wants a lynching
they can drag someone out of prison and see to it that they get the
justice they want. Ah, the good old days. Probably not too good for
people like Trayvon, who have historically been the targets of
lynchings in the US, but what the hey, we can't always have
consequences that we like, so let's get on with out show.
We know he's in there and we know he's not white sheriff, send 'im out
so we can tie a knot with 13 turns around his neck and watch 'im
dance! What? 13 turns isn't good for that kind of thing? Well just
for messin' with tradition we'll hang you too. It'll be a necktie
party for two. Rule of law and justice be damned.
> >Although, I'm not even sure that might do it. I think it's possible
> >that Zimmerman could defend himself against a charge of murder even
> >with out a stand your ground law. It's hard to retreat when you're
> >being beaten up and maybe having your head hit against the pavement
> >when someone is on top of you.
>
> Except for one slight technicality: Zimmernan had a gun and Trayvon
> Martin did not.
>
> >If it does go to trial as a second degree case and he's acquitted I
> >wonder if he'll sue for malicious prosecution.
>
> If he is acquitted there will be riiots.
Truly? Do you know someone who is going to riot? Quick, call the
> >If it does go to trial as a second degree case and he's acquitted I
> >wonder if he'll sue for malicious prosecution.
>
> If he is acquitted there will be riiots.
police.
David Johnston
May 20, 2012, 2:40:49 AM5/20/12
to
On 5/19/2012 10:03 PM, LGi...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Sat, 19 May 2012 16:34:38 -0700 (PDT), theget
> <the...@bigmailbox.net> wrote:
>
>> http://www.miamiherald.com/2012/05/19/2806555/evidence-against-zimmerman-lacking.html
>>
>> According to the article an element of second degree murder must
>> include malice on the part of Zimmerman.
>>
>> The article quotes a former prosecutor who is now a defense attorney,
>> a former prosecutor and a defense attorney, who all say that they
>> don't see evidence of malice.
> Then they need new glasses. The malice is that Zimmerman flet
> Trayvon Martin was up to no good and would get away with it.
That is not malice. Malice is the intent to commit an unlawful killing.
> On Sat, 19 May 2012 16:34:38 -0700 (PDT), theget
> <the...@bigmailbox.net> wrote:
>
>> http://www.miamiherald.com/2012/05/19/2806555/evidence-against-zimmerman-lacking.html
>>
>> According to the article an element of second degree murder must
>> include malice on the part of Zimmerman.
>>
>> The article quotes a former prosecutor who is now a defense attorney,
>> a former prosecutor and a defense attorney, who all say that they
>> don't see evidence of malice.
> Then they need new glasses. The malice is that Zimmerman flet
> Trayvon Martin was up to no good and would get away with it.
>
>> It's starting to seem to me that Zimmerman will probably not be
>> convicted, perhaps not even going to trial, unless the prosecution
>> charges him with some other crime.
> Zimmernan should be tried for first degree murder and fry in the
> electric chair.
>
>>
>> Although, I'm not even sure that might do it. I think it's possible
>> that Zimmerman could defend himself against a charge of murder even
>> with out a stand your ground law. It's hard to retreat when you're
>> being beaten up and maybe having your head hit against the pavement
>> when someone is on top of you.
> Except for one slight technicality: Zimmernan had a gun and Trayvon
> Martin did not.
>
>> If it does go to trial as a second degree case and he's acquitted I
>> wonder if he'll sue for malicious prosecution.
> If he is acquitted there will be riiots.
LGi...@gmail.com
May 20, 2012, 3:42:32 PM5/20/12
to
On Sat, 19 May 2012 22:49:12 -0700 (PDT), theget
<the...@bigmailbox.net> wrote:
>> >It's starting to seem to me that Zimmerman will probably not be
>> >convicted, perhaps not even going to trial, unless the prosecution
>> >charges him with some other crime.
>>
>> Zimmernan should be tried for first degree murder and fry in the
>> electric chair.
>
>Right. Because after all, sticking to the law is a pain, so much
>easier to just... wait. Why bother.
Stand your ground was first conceived to apply to your own
<the...@bigmailbox.net> wrote:
>> >It's starting to seem to me that Zimmerman will probably not be
>> >convicted, perhaps not even going to trial, unless the prosecution
>> >charges him with some other crime.
>>
>> Zimmernan should be tried for first degree murder and fry in the
>> electric chair.
>
>Right. Because after all, sticking to the law is a pain, so much
>easier to just... wait. Why bother.
house, your own yard. It was not intended for an entire
sub division. Also Trayvon was only walking, he was
not threating. Stand your ground was inntedned for
one an individual had broiken into your house and the old
laws required you to flee the house rather than "stand
your ground" and remain in your own house.
>> Except for one slight technicality: Zimmernan had a gun and Trayvon
>> Martin did not.
>
>Which is relevant because?
was goingo to be no threat to a man with a gun.
Zimmernan had a gun, Trayvon did not.
LGi...@gmail.com
May 20, 2012, 3:47:04 PM5/20/12
to
the riots in New York after some high profile cases,
the unrest after the Charles Stuart case, there
will most certainly be riots. It's expected
after many of these high profile cases, its' why
they hold the verdict at the end of the tirlal
until Law Enforcement is ready.
(i.e. the jury comes in with verdict at 3pm but
they hold the announcement until the next day
when police can be ready for the outcry.)
LGi...@gmail.com
May 20, 2012, 3:50:50 PM5/20/12
to
On Sun, 20 May 2012 00:40:49 -0600, David Johnston <Da...@block.net>
wrote:
when he saw Trayvon he absolutley intende to kill him.
He saw trouble because Trayvon was black.
>> Except for one slight technicality: Zimmernan had a gun and Trayvon
>> Martin did not.
>
>Guns only make a difference if you shoot someone.
Which Zimmerman did.
wrote:
>> Then they need new glasses. The malice is that Zimmerman flet
>> Trayvon Martin was up to no good and would get away with it.
>
>That is not malice. Malice is the intent to commit an unlawful killing.
it is malice. Zimmernan muttered about how they always get away,
>> Trayvon Martin was up to no good and would get away with it.
>
>That is not malice. Malice is the intent to commit an unlawful killing.
when he saw Trayvon he absolutley intende to kill him.
He saw trouble because Trayvon was black.
>> Except for one slight technicality: Zimmernan had a gun and Trayvon
>> Martin did not.
>
>Guns only make a difference if you shoot someone.
David Johnston
May 20, 2012, 7:09:28 PM5/20/12
to
On 5/20/2012 1:50 PM, LGi...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Sun, 20 May 2012 00:40:49 -0600, David Johnston<Da...@block.net>
> wrote:
>>> Then they need new glasses. The malice is that Zimmerman flet
>>> Trayvon Martin was up to no good and would get away with it.
>>
>> That is not malice. Malice is the intent to commit an unlawful killing.
> it is malice. Zimmernan muttered about how they always get away,
> when he saw Trayvon he absolutley intende to kill him.
Without him saying that, they have no evidence to make that case.
> On Sun, 20 May 2012 00:40:49 -0600, David Johnston<Da...@block.net>
> wrote:
>>> Then they need new glasses. The malice is that Zimmerman flet
>>> Trayvon Martin was up to no good and would get away with it.
>>
>> That is not malice. Malice is the intent to commit an unlawful killing.
> it is malice. Zimmernan muttered about how they always get away,
> when he saw Trayvon he absolutley intende to kill him.
theget
May 21, 2012, 2:03:21 AM5/21/12
to
On May 20, 3:42 pm, LGi...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Sat, 19 May 2012 22:49:12 -0700 (PDT), theget<the...@bigmailbox.net> wrote:
> >> >It's starting to seem to me that Zimmerman will probably not be
> >> >convicted, perhaps not even going to trial, unless the prosecution
> >> >charges him with some other crime.
>
> >> Zimmernan should be tried for first degree murder and fry in the
> >> electric chair.
>
> >Right. Because after all, sticking to the law is a pain, so much
> >easier to just... wait. Why bother.
>
> Stand your ground was first conceived to apply to your own
> house, your own yard.
I don't think that is true. I think you may be thinking about the
> On Sat, 19 May 2012 22:49:12 -0700 (PDT), theget<the...@bigmailbox.net> wrote:
> >> >It's starting to seem to me that Zimmerman will probably not be
> >> >convicted, perhaps not even going to trial, unless the prosecution
> >> >charges him with some other crime.
>
> >> Zimmernan should be tried for first degree murder and fry in the
> >> electric chair.
>
> >Right. Because after all, sticking to the law is a pain, so much
> >easier to just... wait. Why bother.
>
> Stand your ground was first conceived to apply to your own
> house, your own yard.
usual run of the mill self defense laws that people often call the
castle rules. That is, you don't have to retreat if you're in your
home, or in at least a few states, I think, if you're in your place of
business.
> It was not intended for an entire
> sub division.
state.
> Also Trayvon was only walking, he was
> not threating.
> Stand your ground was inntedned for
> one an individual had broiken into your house and the old
> laws required you to flee the house rather than "stand
> your ground" and remain in your own house.
stand your ground laws intended to do away with that requirement, so
that if, eg you are attacked in the local mall parking lot, you don't
have to retreat.
>
> >> Except for one slight technicality: Zimmernan had a gun and Trayvon
> >> Martin did not.
>
> >Which is relevant because?
>
> Because common sense would tell you an unarmed 17 year old
> was goingo to be no threat to a man with a gun.
Common sense? But my dear fellow, we are talking of the law.
> >> Except for one slight technicality: Zimmernan had a gun and Trayvon
> >> Martin did not.
>
> >Which is relevant because?
>
> Because common sense would tell you an unarmed 17 year old
> was goingo to be no threat to a man with a gun.
No matter. It's not the issue of a threat or not. The issue is, did
Zimmerman reasonably fear for his life. If he was in fact being
punched in the face by Trayvon who was on top of him while Zimmerman
was on his back on the ground receiving two black eyes and lacerations
on the back of his scalp then it may be reasonable for him to have
thought that his life was in danger. I suggest that stand your ground
might not be relevant here, as the old law might apply. How could he
have retreated safely.
> Zimmernan had a gun, Trayvon did not.
theget
May 21, 2012, 2:12:48 AM5/21/12
to
On May 20, 3:50 pm, LGi...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Sun, 20 May 2012 00:40:49 -0600, David Johnston <Da...@block.net>
> wrote:>> Then they need new glasses. The malice is that Zimmerman flet
> >> Trayvon Martin was up to no good and would get away with it.
>
> >That is not malice. Malice is the intent to commit an unlawful killing.
>
> it is malice. Zimmernan muttered about how they always get away,
> when he saw Trayvon he absolutley intende to kill him.
It's not clear to me that you actually know this. It's clear that you
> On Sun, 20 May 2012 00:40:49 -0600, David Johnston <Da...@block.net>
> wrote:>> Then they need new glasses. The malice is that Zimmerman flet
> >> Trayvon Martin was up to no good and would get away with it.
>
> >That is not malice. Malice is the intent to commit an unlawful killing.
>
> it is malice. Zimmernan muttered about how they always get away,
> when he saw Trayvon he absolutley intende to kill him.
think it. In court, it's not what you think, it's not what you know,
it's what you can *prove* beyond a reasonable doubt.
Please offer your proof.
Or please explain why there seems to be such a delay from the time he
saw Trayvon to the time he was shot.
Do you think Zimmerman cleverly tricked Trayvon into attacking him?
He must be quite the master manipulator.
> He saw trouble because Trayvon was black.
race until he was asked. You haven't been listening to those edited
tapes, have you? You know the ones I mean. The ones some media
outlets have edited to make it sound like Zimmerman is a racist?
>
> >> Except for one slight technicality: Zimmernan had a gun and Trayvon
> >> Martin did not.
>
> >Guns only make a difference if you shoot someone.
>
> Which Zimmerman did.
fear of his life the prosecutors would like to hear from you.
David Johnston
May 21, 2012, 11:28:39 AM5/21/12
to
0 new messages