State v Zimmerman

[laklak]

I don't get the manslaughter thing, either he defended himself or he didn't.

If I were on the jury he'd be walking.

[Coito ergo sum]

Self defense is a defense to manslaughter too. The prosecution are cocks because they want manslaughter in there to give the jury a "compromise" position between acquittal and life in prison.

[Coito ergo sum]

Closing arguments are on live right now -- prosecution is giving their shpeal -- http://www.foxnews.com/live-coverage/zimmerman-trial

[laklak]

I'm with Seth on this one - it's a political show trial to appease the spittle-flecked masses. It took them over 40 days to charge him because they didn't think it was a chargeable offense in the first place. Now they're stuck with it, and it looks from the outside like the prosecution did everything they could to throw the trial. Fuck me, a first year student wouldn't have pulled the stuff they came up with. But a manslaughter conviction would save face and appease the mob. I've a feeling the judge would fuck him proper hard on sentencing, though.

[Seth]

Too bad we did not get a 911 call from TVN when the stalker appeared and M decided to stand his ground, even though unarmed. Chicken Z only came out of the truck because he was armed.

Yes, things would be much different if Martin had called the police instead of his girlfriend, and perhaps refrained from using racist language. Martin certainly had the right to ask the same question of Zimmerman that Zimmerman asked of him. He had the right to tell Zimmerman to go screw himself. He had the right to tell Zimmerman to go ahead and call the cops. He had the right to ignore Zimmerman and go home.

What he did not have the right to do was to attack and try to kill Zimmerman because he felt disrespected.

[Seth]

He was gonna capture one of those assholes that always get away. Teens are fair game to shoot, if a criminal act is committed. Acting weird was a promising start, but unlikely to be an up and coming teen burglar.

You evidently still have no concept of what the law actually is, despite being told many times exactly what it says. I judge this willful denial of facts based on bias and irrationality.

[Tero]

Tape live: "he jumped out of the bush and hit me in the nose"

Seth: just clearing up that I did not see it as a racial thing. Z would have been happy to catch white or hispanic teens in hoodies.

[Seth]

Tape live: "he jumped out of the bush and hit me in the nose"

Seth: just clearing up that I did not see it as a racial thing. Z would have been happy to catch white or hispanic teens in hoodies.

I agree. Zimmerman wasn't "racially profiling," not that there is anything wrong with doing so under certain circumstances. I was talking about Martin's racist comments of calling Zimmerman a "cracker."

[Tero]

The state has some points in the summary: it's clear that Z saw himself as an active peace keeper, not the"eyes" of a neighborhood watch.

[Coito ergo sum]

The state has some points in the summary: it's clear that Z saw himself as an active peace keeper, not the"eyes" of a neighborhood watch.

Even if Z is a peace keeper, the evidence seems to allow for the reasonable possibility that he acted in self defense, doesn't it?

[Seth]

The state has some points in the summary: it's clear that Z saw himself as an active peace keeper, not the"eyes" of a neighborhood watch.

So what? He's right, you're wrong. The authority the police have to enforce the law originates with Zimmerman and every other citizen, and it's not an abdication of power by the people to grant a co-equal authority to enforce the law to hired minions.

Each and every citizen in this country has an absolute constitutional right to be an "active peace keeper."

Just because Neighborhood Watch organizations (which are private, not official and they have no authority whatsoever to regulate anyone's behavior) suggests, for reasons of legal liability, that their members not directly engage a suspect doesn't mean that the individuals don't have the complete right to do so if they deem it reasonable and necessary to do so. It just means the organization might boot them out for not following its rules.

I'd never belong to a "neighborhood watch" organization that tried to forbid or dissuade me from either going about armed or from intervening in a crime in progress.

That's MY decision to make, not theirs, not yours, not some police dispatcher's and not even a police officer's.

[aspire1670]

The state has some points in the summary: it's clear that Z saw himself as an active peace keeper, not the"eyes" of a neighborhood watch.

Each and every citizen in this country has an absolute constitutional right to be an armed killer; er, um I mean a vigilante, no, that's not it; an "active peace keeper." Ah, I mean a right to pontificate from an armchair.

FIFY

This message was brought to you from the "SethoMaticLazyBoy" armchair company
as recommended by wannabe cops and dispatchers. Available in sizes Colorado king size to fat bastard super arse from all right thinking retailers.

[Tero]

The aggressive actions of the self appointed peace keeper led to the conflict. No gun, no conflict. A streetwise kid can sense these very quickly.

[Coito ergo sum]

The aggressive actions of the self appointed peace keeper led to the conflict. No gun, no conflict. A streetwise kid can sense these very quickly.

No gun, no shooting with a gun, sure. No gun, no conflict? That's a leap.

What was "aggressive" about the self-appointed peace keeper? (referring to any actual evidence at trial or reported in the news).

Lots of things "led" to the conflict. The aggressive actions of a wandering miscreant also led to the conflict. Sounds to me like reasonable doubt. Doesn't it sound that way to you?

The commentators on the foxnews stream seemed to be impressed by the prosecutor's closing argument. However, as I listened to it, I heard the prosecutor give a good argument for how Zimmerman may well have had it in for Martin and had bad blood, may have pursued him, may have initiated things. But, of course, the evidence still leaves open the very real possibility that Zimmerman's narrative was true too. Did the prosecution even establish that their version of events is even "probably" true? I'm not even sure I could say they did that. However, even if what the prosecutors say is "probably" the truth, that is not enough to convict.

The defense is up tomorrow morning. They'll probably instruct the jury in the afternoon, and then send them off to deliberate over the weekend.

I predict the jury will think about the case over the weekend. To come back with an acquittal Friday evening would be too soon, and the jury has got to be concerned that they are going to be in the spotlight and subject to retaliation based on their verdict. Whatever they decide, they will want to make sure they give the case due and serious consideration - which is what they should do anyway, as one man is dead and another man's life is on the line.

[Tero]

The prosecution made a good case for Z going after a "suspect" in an unprofessional manner and then making up details later where he was just observing, not really following.