The Zimmerman case?

  On 7/16/2013 at 7:11 PM, joshuatx said:

It's really a shame the prosecution tried for murder - they should of focused on manslaughter and the fact that Zimmerman was out of line in his actions. And Florida needs to revoke that fucking law. Again, race aside, people keep saying "it's tragic" but that Zimmerman was defending himself. But was he in imminent danger of being killed? No fucking way. Endorsing this as self-defense is basically saying "better him than me" as a life mantra, and let's be honest, not one of those jurors is a fucking nihilist gun slinging Dirty Harry vigilante. They would want Zimmerman in jail if it was their own child. That's what still pisses me off about it.

Very good point. I was just going to ask if there is this differentiation in US law between murder, manslaughter and self-defense. Because so far we've only discussed about murder OR self-defense (at least up to page 4, sorry for not following to the very end).

In German law, manslaughter is killing someone out of the situation (can even be "to act in the heat of moment"). It is not equal to self-defense. And it is not equal to murder. But at least it puts some responsibility back to the person who killed. And in particular if Zimmermann actually was (even if only partly) responsible for the situation itself (by following Trayvon, maybe even frightening him by this behaviour, perhaps even up to the point where Trayvon might have felt like he should go for self-defense --> I'm only guessing here and bringing in some "ifs"), then Zimmermann definitely would have been guilty of manslaughter to some degree.

So does this mean that the defense claimed the wrong charges? And if so, can the defense re-open the trial with the charge of manslaughter?

  On 7/16/2013 at 7:18 PM, lumpenprol said:

 

  On 7/16/2013 at 6:30 PM, Bertolt Brechtakt said:

 

  On 7/14/2013 at 2:17 PM, pyramidpanes said:

 

 

 

also why was the jury 90% white female?

 

 

 

freaky Twilight Zone plot twist: there were 12 jurors

 

*cues X-files music*

 

It was 83.33333333333333333333333333333333333333 %

  On 7/16/2013 at 8:26 PM, joshuatx said:

 

  On 7/16/2013 at 7:18 PM, lumpenprol said:

 

  On 7/16/2013 at 6:30 PM, Bertolt Brechtakt said:

 

  On 7/14/2013 at 2:17 PM, pyramidpanes said:

 

 

 

also why was the jury 90% white female?

 

 

 

freaky Twilight Zone plot twist: there were 12 jurors

 

*cues X-files music*

 

 

It was 83.33333333333333333333333333333333333333 %

 

 

lol

  On 7/16/2013 at 7:38 PM, Bertolt Brechtakt said:

 

  On 7/16/2013 at 7:11 PM, joshuatx said:

It's really a shame the prosecution tried for murder - they should of focused on manslaughter and the fact that Zimmerman was out of line in his actions. And Florida needs to revoke that fucking law. Again, race aside, people keep saying "it's tragic" but that Zimmerman was defending himself. But was he in imminent danger of being killed? No fucking way. Endorsing this as self-defense is basically saying "better him than me" as a life mantra, and let's be honest, not one of those jurors is a fucking nihilist gun slinging Dirty Harry vigilante. They would want Zimmerman in jail if it was their own child. That's what still pisses me off about it.

 

Very good point. I was just going to ask if there is this differentiation in US law between murder, manslaughter and self-defense. Because so far we've only discussed about murder OR self-defense (at least up to page 4, sorry for not following to the very end).

 

In German law, manslaughter is killing someone out of the situation (can even be "to act in the heat of moment"). It is not equal to self-defense. And it is not equal to murder. But at least it puts some responsibility back to the person who killed. And in particular if Zimmermann actually was (even if only partly) responsible for the situation itself (by following Trayvon, maybe even frightening him by this behaviour, perhaps even up to the point where Trayvon might have felt like he should go for self-defense --> I'm only guessing here and bringing in some "ifs"), then Zimmermann definitely would have been guilty of manslaughter to some degree.

 

So does this mean that the defense claimed the wrong charges? And if so, can the defense re-open the trial with the charge of manslaughter?

 

They could of found him guilty of manslaughter. Likewise, the defense did not invoke the "stand your ground" law as defense in the actual trial, though he did want a pretrial hearing but decided to bypass that step and go to trial.

The law itself was mentioned a lot by media outlets and has been essentially a wrench in the system regarding many cases but it did not technically come in play in the trial, but who knows how much it influenced the jury. It's just bad legislation overall. Also, as much as the jury could of been bias, they also had extremely lengthy and confusing instructions. The acquittal itself is not outrageous in that context. The outrage is that our system is this confusing and the media did nothing to quell that, but instead perpetuated misinformation.

AFAIK, manslaughter basically means the person killed another human being, but did not murder them. It usually tends to hinge on provocation, self-defense claims, etc.

edit: in other words, i think the term is really open-ended and basically implies killing but not with intentional malice unless provoked, depends on the situation, etc.

  On 7/16/2013 at 7:11 PM, joshuatx said:

And Florida needs to revoke that fucking law.

I agree with you and I agree that the juror B37 sounds like an utter and abject racist cunt, but I also have to say that it's not the job of jurors to form ad hoc panels for changing legal code, on-the-fly and in the middle of a trial.

They explicitly followed the instructions agreed upon by the judge, the prosecution, and the defense.

This is 100% Grade "A" Stupid American Justice, working as intended.

  On 7/16/2013 at 8:35 PM, joshuatx said:

The law itself was mentioned a lot by media outlets and has been essentially a wrench in the system regarding many cases but it did not technically come in play in the trial, but who knows how much it influenced the jury.

 

This is incorrect, unfortunately.

The Stand Your Ground law was explicitly included in the jury's instructions, and to go one step further, it was cited by the Paula Deen juror in her interview with Anderson Cooper.

4. Verdict hinged on “Stand Your Ground” law, even though Zimmerman did not use it in his defense.

  On 7/16/2013 at 9:01 PM, Mirezzi said:

 

  On 7/16/2013 at 8:35 PM, joshuatx said:

The law itself was mentioned a lot by media outlets and has been essentially a wrench in the system regarding many cases but it did not technically come in play in the trial, but who knows how much it influenced the jury.

 

 

This is incorrect, unfortunately.

 

The Stand Your Ground law was explicitly included in the jury's instructions, and to go one step further, it was cited by the Paula Deen juror in her interview with Anderson Cooper.

 

4. Verdict hinged on “Stand Your Ground” law, even though Zimmerman did not use it in his defense.

COOPER: Because of the two options you had, second degree murder or manslaughter, you felt neither applied?

JUROR: Right.

Because of the heat of the moment and the Stand Your Ground

. He had a right to defend himself. If he felt threatened that his life was going to be taken away from him or he was going to have bodily harm, he had a right.

Here is the section from the jury instructions:

  Quote

If George Zimmerman was not engaged in an unlawful activity and was attacked in any place where he had a right to be, he had no duty to retreat and had the right to stand his ground and meet force with force, including deadly force if he reasonably believed that it was necessary to do so to prevent death or great bodily harm to himself or another or to prevent the commission of a forcible felony.

 

 

Fuck, I was mistaken. Then yeah, that law needs to go. And to make it clear, I don't personally blame the jury but the law itself and the way the case was brought up, I hope I didn't imply otherwise.

Well, let me tell you what I think about this fucking juror:

I'll start by quoting a lovely comment posted to Jezebel.

  Quote

This venal woman is what we in the legal community call a "stealth juror." She wanted to get on the jury because she had an agenda: acquit Zimmerman and to get a book deal. Her oath as a juror meant nothing to her, but her subterfuge meant a role in setting Zimmerman free and making money. What filth.

When talking to my wife this morning, I remarked on how patently ridiculous Florida is for its jury makeup laws.

One of the many valid reasons for having 12 (or 15 in some countries) jurors is to prevent an Alpha Dog juror from seducing people into doing their bidding.

Speaking personally, I can be a pretty persuasive cunt, having spent a lifetime personally and professionally using language and ideas to manipulate people into doing things that would benefit me - E.g. Buying my products, services, or access to my penis. If you put me on a jury with five other assholes, I'm gonna have a fairly good chance of convincing them that I'm Santa Claus. Twelve jurors, however, makes that orders of magnitude more difficult.

The jury was split, 3-3, with two favoring manslaughter and one favoring 2nd degree murder. The juror favoring 2nd degree murder came around to manslaughter. Juror B37 was in favor of acquittal from the get-go and obviously, she convinced the other three that "Poor George" had done nothing wrong that evening.

Although I conceded in my previous post that this is American Justice working as intended, those three jurors favoring manslaughter definitely had enough evidence to support that decision. It came down to how you feel about the credibility of Zimmerman.

Juror B37 is hoping to some day meet him in a dark alley so she can take his load down her fat Floridian throat.

Somehow, she convinced three other jurors that "he ain't so bad, poor fella; his heart is in the right place."

Yeah, 6 jurors is kind of a small amount.

is it true Zimmerman was on adderal at the time the murder happened? If it is, how is that not relevant to his paranoid state? It seems far more relevant than THC being in any way a cause of a violent act on the behalf of Martin's part.

  On 7/16/2013 at 10:10 PM, John Ehrlichman said:

is it true Zimmerman was on adderal at the time the murder happened? If it is, how is that not relevant to his paranoid state? It seems far more relevant than THC being in any way a cause of a violent act on the behalf of Martin's part.

i think i remember the THC level thing was ordered to be disregarded by the jury

i just don't even remember hearing about his ADD prescription in the media anywhere either, it was told to me by a friend. Hell i don't even know if it's true. I'm sure it's not like this for everybody (and i've never done meth mind you) but the only time I've ever gotten into 'kill a robber' mode was when i was on adderal late at night and I thought I heard somebody trying to get into my front door. I turned off all the lights and dove to the ground with a knife in my hand. It was a total paranoid delusion brought on by pharmaceutical speed.

This country will never vilify prescription drugs as much as much as it does the illegal ones. That is part of why America is so fucked up. Not enough common sense to go around. I will agree I took adderall for about a year, and have used other similar stimulants. It definitely can increase anxiety related stress and paranoia. At "toxic" doses it cause full on hallucinations.

All I know is that the verdict was a total fuck-up. I'd be surprised of some street vigilante hasn't already put a price on his head.

  On 7/16/2013 at 10:27 PM, AdieuErsatzEnnui said:

This country will never vilify prescription drugs as much as much as it does the illegal ones. That is part of why America is so fucked up. Not enough common sense to go around. I will agree I took adderall for about a year, and have used other similar stimulants. It definitely can increase anxiety related stress and paranoia. At "toxic" doses it cause full on hallucinations.

But is it a gateway drug?

At least the THC angle was thrown out. I really think America is finally losing it's fixation on pot being an illegal substance, but we still have a long ass way to go.

  On 7/17/2013 at 2:11 AM, joshuatx said:

 

  On 7/16/2013 at 10:27 PM, AdieuErsatzEnnui said:

This country will never vilify prescription drugs as much as much as it does the illegal ones. That is part of why America is so fucked up. Not enough common sense to go around. I will agree I took adderall for about a year, and have used other similar stimulants. It definitely can increase anxiety related stress and paranoia. At "toxic" doses it cause full on hallucinations.

 

But is it a gateway drug?

 

At least the THC angle was thrown out. I really think America is finally losing it's fixation on pot being an illegal substance, but we still have a long ass way to go.

 

Life is a gateway drug innit?

Doesn't sound too far fetched.

[youtubehd]PX1sxARNq_c[/youtubehd]

i've changed my stance i think

zim was prob gay

and therefore, prob rapist

tray had lil bro he had to protect from gay rapist

plus zim didn't know, was just whoop-ass. not bash.

dey was blood, but dat jus whoop ass

so now i know, that's just how they, i guess deal with gay hispanics in some places. somone here couldve explained this earlier

knock knock cracka

whos there

whoop ass (+sidewalk)

no biggie

From the tone of his voice, and body language the only part it seems like he is lying is when he is explaining how the initial physical altercation started. Everything else sounds like he is being pretty honest. Also, the way he describes where the altercation began and where it ended up seems sort of odd.

  On 7/17/2013 at 3:01 AM, MisterE said:

i've changed my stance i think

 

zim was prob gay

and therefore, prob rapist

tray had lil bro he had to protect from gay rapist

plus zim didn't know, was just whoop-ass. not bash.

dey was blood, but dat jus whoop ass

 

so now i know, that's just how they, i guess deal with gay hispanics in some places. somone here couldve explained this earlier

 

knock knock cracka

whos there

whoop ass (+sidewalk)

 

no biggie

the fuck is this?

it's just that i've decided to change my evil ways. i want to be pc like most here

excuse if i got any of this wrong, but im new to this, but now i know, in case of emergencies, there is order of preferential treatment. don't have full list but now i know:

black > gay hispanic cracker

i get u guys now. trayvon HAD to go back. lil bro not safe with a gay on the loose

so i want to join pc gang and im learning

my understanding is, we are 'tolerant of all groups' (wink wink) until two of those groups we promise we love clash into each other. then we refer to ordered list of importance

we love everybody

everyone equal

we love blacks

we love gays

we love hispanics

but if black kid do whoop ass on one gay hispanic, sorry gay hispanic, ahem white hispanic, but maybe next life we be there for u. try reincarnate with other, more important skin

BUT if white guy did whoop ass on gay hispanic, then zim would be HERO in white on hispanic racist attack, possible homophobia hate crime too, instead of shitbag in white on black racisms

iz so confusing. media pleez tell me who to hate next

im here, im tolerant, and im ready to hate

im pc and i see skin color more than anyone

wheres ongoing thread of outrage about multitude of blacks killed (mostly in dem ran cities) since, during, and before trayvon? who cares? not us, media didn't tell us to! (wasn't all killed by 'white hispanic', not as important)

im one of u now!!!!! iz gooooood

it's really weird watching you try to squeeze your agenda into these political threads, quite cringe-worthy.

chunky does it much more seamlessly imo. you should just follow him and blame the jews.

ohhhh excellent side step. 0 effort, 0 thought, 0 intelligence. i totally didnt see that one coming. no, not from you. just compare me to the local lunatic (sorry chunk)

thing is. you know damn well it's not like that. and THAT'S why you hate me so much. i don't even care about you. how often have i went out of my way to respond to one of YOUR posts? tata

the right wing talking point of 'she said zimmerman is gay' is straight out of the Rush Limbaugh broadcast from earlier this morning, good thing I listen to this shit so I can see it coming when it filters down to the rest of the brownshirts