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.
Zimmerman will get off quite easily. The prosecution has bungled this case and the evidence shows that Martin was the aggressor. Self defense all the way. Never get in the way of a man defending his castle and himself in the process. The fact that Martin will be shown to be more thuggish than the MSM portrayed will come to light as well.
So far I have not seen enough evidence that I would vote for a guilty plea.
Nor have I and I detest the man, but the fact remains the prosecution had no evidence to present.
GZ may be a wanna be, he maybe dumber than a box of rocks and he may be a racist, but none of these things make him guilty of murder 2, nor do they mean he should be convicted. He should only be convicted based on the facts and the evidence. I would at this point find him not guilty.
Yes, they can find him guilty of the lesser included offense of manslaughter. The Judge will have to include in the final Jury Instructions the law regarding manslaughter which then allows the Jury to find guilt on that offense.
"A lesser crime whose elements are encompassed by a greater crime.
A lesser included offense shares some, but not all, of the elements of a greater criminal offense. Therefore, the greater offense cannot be committed without also committing the lesser offense. For example, Manslaughter is a lesser included offense of murder, assault is a lesser included offense of rape, and unlawful entry is a lesser included offense of Burglary.
The rules of Criminal Procedure permit two or more offenses to be charged together, regardless of whether they are misdemeanors or felonies, provided that the crimes are of a similar character and based on the same act or common plan. This permits prosecutors to charge the greater offense and the lesser included offense together. Although the offenses can be charged together, the accused cannot be found guilty of both offenses because they are both parts of the same crime (the lesser offense is part of the greater offense).
When a defendant is charged with a greater offense and one or more lesser included offenses, the trial court is generally required to give the jury instructions as to each of the lesser included offenses as well as the greater offense."
which is exactly why a Grand Jury should have heard all the evidence and decided on charges,
not the airhead picked for political reasons.
this is a major reason why this case has been so polarizing,
it has all the appearances of a travesty of justice.
Manslaughter is a lesser included offense in cases of murder. Even if the grand jury indicted on 2nd degree murder, manslaughter would still be a lesser included offense. Additionally, this case was not taken to a grand jury so you nor I nor anyone else will ever know what the grand jury would have done.
"A lesser crime whose elements are encompassed by a greater crime.
A lesser included offense shares some, but not all, of the elements of a greater criminal offense. Therefore, the greater offense cannot be committed without also committing the lesser offense. For example, Manslaughter is a lesser included offense of murder, assault is a lesser included offense of rape, and unlawful entry is a lesser included offense of Burglary."
Unfortunatly I think they will find him guilty, although I personally think he is NOT guilty of 2nd degree murder.
Does the process allow the jury to find him guilty of a lesser crime, like manslaughter, if they think 2nd degree is too much? Or would that be double jeopardy?
I don't think so. Honestly, I haven't researched it as thoroughly as I should have before posting, but I don't think so. I don't think the lesser charge was made. I believe the charge has to be made before the jury can consider it.
NBC is saying one of the first witnesses might be Trayvon's father. That would be a huge mistake. We've seen enough family. Tracy initially said it wasn't Trayvon's voice, but so what! Tracy isn't the one on trial here. If they want to continue to babble about the voice, they need 1 expert witness who can say in a few words as possible that nobody knows.The jury has already gladly forgotten about the guy they called early on. West spent FAR FAR FAR too much time with him.
West needs to sit down and shut up. He's the only thing hurting his client.
Zimmerman will get off quite easily. The prosecution has bungled this case and the evidence shows that Martin was the aggressor. Self defense all the way. Never get in the way of a man defending his castle and himself in the process. The fact that Martin will be shown to be more thuggish than the MSM portrayed will come to light as well.
At this point, evidence of TM's reputation and character (so-call thuggishness, in your words) has been ruled inadmissible; that means it can't be brought up at this time, or at all, unless some very specific things occur at some point in the remainder of the trial. Don't believe me, read the law:
90.404 Character evidence; when admissible.—
(1) CHARACTER EVIDENCE GENERALLY.—Evidence of a person’s character or a trait of character is inadmissible to prove action in conformity with it on a particular occasion, except:
(a) Character of accused.—Evidence of a pertinent trait of character offered by an accused, or by the prosecution to rebut the trait.
(b) Character of victim.—
1. Except as provided in s. 794.022, evidence of a pertinent trait of character of the victim of the crime offered by an accused, or by the prosecution to rebut the trait; or
2. Evidence of a character trait of peacefulness of the victim offered by the prosecution in a homicide case to rebut evidence that the victim was the aggressor
I don't think so. Honestly, I haven't researched it as thoroughly as I should have before posting, but I don't think so. I don't think the lesser charge was made. I believe the charge has to be made before the jury can consider it.
NBC is saying one of the first witnesses might be Trayvon's father. That would be a huge mistake. We've seen enough family. Tracy initially said it wasn't Trayvon's voice, but so what! Tracy isn't the one on trial here. If they want to continue to babble about the voice, they need 1 expert witness who can say in a few words as possible that nobody knows.The jury has already gladly forgotten about the guy they called early on. West spent FAR FAR FAR too much time with him.
West needs to sit down and shut up. He's the only thing hurting his client.
I hope he isnt calling his father. At this point, I think the jury has more than enough reason to assume we dont know whos voice that was. Theres been enough conflicting evidence of this. There is no need to pursue that anymore. If it were me in the jury, nothing else that they have is going to give me confidence into whos voice it was. So drop it already.
West, yes i know hes a lawyer and Im not, but it would seem foolish to pursue crap like this. Stick with only what you need to, which shouldnt be much at this point.
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.
