Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
If I break into your house, rush you and attack you, and then you shoot me, at the very least, the law is going to be more lenient with you. Anyone who believes the law isn't twisted, mangled, and manipulated depending on the situation, the person, and the politics involved is highly naive.
Being that opinions have steamrolled to greatly in the direction of Zimmerman being "not guilty" of the murder charge since the start of the trial, largely in part due to media coverage I'd have to assume, I wonder how the jurors feel about what they saw in the trial. The public has pretty much all come to believe the legal analysts' opinions of what they've viewed in the preceding, but they are all lawyers and have a much keener sense of what-is-what in court than a typical juror (who has likely spent zero time in court prior to jury duty and hasn't been trained to listen to quirky little details the way a lawyer has), and since they haven't had access to legal analysts during sequestration, it could be possible that they haven't dismissed the 2nd degree murder charge as emphatically as the public.
I didn't follow the case, but I remember how off the public was with the Casey Anthony verdict.
I believe my post was in response to a comment that said no one ever get killed by fist fights. Don't think anyone is arguing the amount of firearm deaths. I don't think he understood the death by Hands and fist was so common.
I am understanding on the Manslaughter charge that there is a case, in Florida law, where the ruling was appealed as you must offer all three instructions or options, i.e. , 2A, 2B and 2C. They only offered 2A, which is culpable negligence.
Maybe the Defense knew about the case and didn't put the Prosecution on notice.
For one, an intruder is 100% up to no good. In Zimmerman's case, it's unclear how much he contributed to the scuffle. We do know, from witness testimony, and a bit from statements made by Zimmerman when he went on his talking tour, that he did instigate a confrontation by following TM. From there, it has to be obvious why the two situations aren't equivalent.
I was responding to the specific poster; that poster stated there are numerous things a person, in this case Zimmerman, could have done instead of shooting; my question to the poster is; are the ethics different inside the home than outside the home?
You do realize that while searching for TM, that GZ had already passed the intersection of the T, and was told by dispatch that they didn't need him to follow, and at that point he turned around and was passing the intersection again when the ran into each other. Why didn't he see TM the first time? Because TM was down closer to the bottom of the T where he lived. He came back to the intersection. Remember the four minutes?
Don't pretend to know what happened during those four minutes. You don't. Only George knows for sure and he's got a good reason not to be totally honest about it.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
