Zimmerman vs. Martin

boredlimodriver

i guarantee 90% of the people in this thread have not watched one second of the case, or reviewed the evidence.

Otherwise they're just blinded by SOMETHING to think Zimmerman should be found guilty.

I've watched quite a bit of it, both prosecution and defense arguments. I know what I'm talking about. Zimmerman murdered a kid, its pretty sad.

I won't speculate as to why he did it exactly. Was it racism? Was it for other reasons? Who knows. I'm not going to accuse you of anything for believing otherwise.

Sir, you need to look up the legal definition of murder in both federal law and florida law, you really have no clue what you are talking about. If you have watched the trial then your response is even worse than those who have not, you ability to process information and comprehend it is severely diminished. I'm not saying you can't have the opinion he is guilty of killing this kid but murder by statutory definition it is not.

mur·der (mûrdr)
n.
1. The unlawful killing of one human by another, especially with premeditated malice.

Yep. And so?

so if im driving in my car and hit someone, I should be convicted of murder?

no

moosegt35

i guarantee 90% of the people in this thread have not watched one second of the case, or reviewed the evidence.

Otherwise they're just blinded by SOMETHING to think Zimmerman should be found guilty.

I've watched quite a bit of it, both prosecution and defense arguments. I know what I'm talking about. Zimmerman murdered a kid, its pretty sad.

I won't speculate as to why he did it exactly. Was it racism? Was it for other reasons? Who knows. I'm not going to accuse you of anything for believing otherwise.

Sir, you need to look up the legal definition of murder in both federal law and florida law, you really have no clue what you are talking about. If you have watched the trial then your response is even worse than those who have not, you ability to process information and comprehend it is severely diminished. I'm not saying you can't have the opinion he is guilty of killing this kid but murder by statutory definition it is not.

mur·der (mûrdr)
n.
1. The unlawful killing of one human by another, especially with premeditated malice.

Yep. And so?

Key word, UNLAWFUL. He was in his rights to defend himself. AKA, it wasn't murder.

RECowgill

i guarantee 90% of the people in this thread have not watched one second of the case, or reviewed the evidence.

Otherwise they're just blinded by SOMETHING to think Zimmerman should be found guilty.

I've watched quite a bit of it, both prosecution and defense arguments. I know what I'm talking about. Zimmerman murdered a kid, its pretty sad.

I won't speculate as to why he did it exactly. Was it racism? Was it for other reasons? Who knows. I'm not going to accuse you of anything for believing otherwise.

Sir, you need to look up the legal definition of murder in both federal law and florida law, you really have no clue what you are talking about. If you have watched the trial then your response is even worse than those who have not, you ability to process information and comprehend it is severely diminished. I'm not saying you can't have the opinion he is guilty of killing this kid but murder by statutory definition it is not.

mur·der (mûrdr)
n.
1. The unlawful killing of one human by another, especially with premeditated malice.

Yep. And so?

so if im driving in my car and hit someone, I should be convicted of murder?

no

Of course not. But thats not what this trial is and its not what Zimmerman did.

moosegt35

wtf? reek of racism, where in the text above does anyone mention race? Don't comment if you are too stupid to read.

And of course you can't be racist without mentioning race, right? Hmm, this reminds me of a certain quote by Lee Atwater, republican political strategist, advisor to Ronald Reagan and George H. W. Bush and chairman of the RNC. Here's what he had to say:

You start out in 1954 by saying, "******, ******, ******." By 1968 you can't say "******" — that hurts you. Backfires. So you say stuff like forced busing, states' rights and all that stuff. You're getting so abstract now [that] you're talking about cutting taxes, and all these things you're talking about are totally economic things and a byproduct of them is [that] blacks get hurt worse than whites. And subconsciously maybe that is part of it. I'm not saying that. But I'm saying that if it is getting that abstract, and that coded, that we are doing away with the racial problem one way or the other. You follow me — because obviously sitting around saying, "We want to cut this," is much more abstract than even the busing thing, and a hell of a lot more abstract than "******, ******."

And that's what people like you been doing for last 40 years or so.

Wow, just wow.

Reinventing_Me

i guarantee 90% of the people in this thread have not watched one second of the case, or reviewed the evidence.

Otherwise they're just blinded by SOMETHING to think Zimmerman should be found guilty.

I've watched quite a bit of it, both prosecution and defense arguments. I know what I'm talking about. Zimmerman murdered a kid, its pretty sad.

I won't speculate as to why he did it exactly. Was it racism? Was it for other reasons? Who knows. I'm not going to accuse you of anything for believing otherwise.

Sir, you need to look up the legal definition of murder in both federal law and florida law, you really have no clue what you are talking about. If you have watched the trial then your response is even worse than those who have not, you ability to process information and comprehend it is severely diminished. I'm not saying you can't have the opinion he is guilty of killing this kid but murder by statutory definition it is not.

mur·der (mûrdr)
n.
1. The unlawful killing of one human by another, especially with premeditated malice.

Yep. And so?

so if im driving in my car and hit someone, I should be convicted of murder?

no

If you run them down on purpose, yes.

boredlimodriver

i guarantee 90% of the people in this thread have not watched one second of the case, or reviewed the evidence.

Otherwise they're just blinded by SOMETHING to think Zimmerman should be found guilty.

I've watched quite a bit of it, both prosecution and defense arguments. I know what I'm talking about. Zimmerman murdered a kid, its pretty sad.

I won't speculate as to why he did it exactly. Was it racism? Was it for other reasons? Who knows. I'm not going to accuse you of anything for believing otherwise.

Sir, you need to look up the legal definition of murder in both federal law and florida law, you really have no clue what you are talking about. If you have watched the trial then your response is even worse than those who have not, you ability to process information and comprehend it is severely diminished. I'm not saying you can't have the opinion he is guilty of killing this kid but murder by statutory definition it is not.

mur·der (mûrdr)
n.
1. The unlawful killing of one human by another, especially with premeditated malice.

Yep. And so?

so if im driving in my car and hit someone, I should be convicted of murder?

no

Of course not. But thats not what this trial is and its not what Zimmerman did.

Zimmerman defended himself.

goalss4nika

I've just kind of responded to others so far, but I do agree that, while GZ was over zealous, I think he reacted the way he did because he thought his life was in danger. Like others have said, Murder 2 is a bit of a far fetched goal for the state and I don't think Zimmerman will be convicted.

I'm watching the trial live right now, and, to me, it seems like the prosecutions case is falling apart. The prosecutor just demonstrated how Martin was above Zimmerman when he was shot (I think he was trying to show otherwise), and he spent about 10 minutes asking the witness what questions he asked Zimmerman after the incident (i.e. the direction he was approached from-something that had been covered already, the hand Martin was hitting him with and other random questions that wouldn't be asked in a statement). It's a lot of questions that seem to be wasting time and not contributing anything to further the trial. But I'm not a lawyer so what do I know...

The prosecutor did not do a good job AT ALL with this case. The defense has a solid case. If Im not mistaken they are planning to rest today and the rest is history. Zimmerman will soon walk away a free man. But regardless of the outcome, In my opinion he will never have a normal life.

rduhlir

i guarantee 90% of the people in this thread have not watched one second of the case, or reviewed the evidence.

Otherwise they're just blinded by SOMETHING to think Zimmerman should be found guilty.

I've watched quite a bit of it, both prosecution and defense arguments. I know what I'm talking about. Zimmerman murdered a kid, its pretty sad.

I won't speculate as to why he did it exactly. Was it racism? Was it for other reasons? Who knows. I'm not going to accuse you of anything for believing otherwise.

Sir, you need to look up the legal definition of murder in both federal law and florida law, you really have no clue what you are talking about. If you have watched the trial then your response is even worse than those who have not, you ability to process information and comprehend it is severely diminished. I'm not saying you can't have the opinion he is guilty of killing this kid but murder by statutory definition it is not.

I agree. I don't see any evidance which supports "murder" at all.

The probability of self defence has been proven, thus the jury will legally be bound to declaring him not guilty. Remember, beyond a shadow of a doubt. So all the defense has to do create the probability that Zimmerman's story is true, which they have done.

Doodlewhopper

I think the prosecution made a mistake charging him with Second Degree murder. If he's found not guilty it will be because he was overcharged and they couldn't prove he's guilty of that charge.

I don't think he deserves to walk, though.

agreed. 2nd degree is exteme, but a kid was shot to death some charge should be held.

Why?

Well I hope he gets 2nd degree murder. Zimmerman should get the chair or the needle for what he's done. That poor family lost their son and deserves justice.

Okay. That'll hold up in court.

I wasn't talking about the court, I was talking about my hope. As for the legal aspects, I agree Zimmerman could walk. I would find that very disappointing, cause I think he's guilty. But that's separate obviously from how the trial or FL legal system may resolve this.

How do you know he is guilty? You're just emotionally attached or trolling. I'm done replying to you though. Watch the trial, learn the facts, then come back.

I have been watching the trial and I'm pretty objective about my conclusion. You concede the argument, that's fine.

Youre very far from being objective.

ncahill77

i guarantee 90% of the people in this thread have not watched one second of the case, or reviewed the evidence.

Otherwise they're just blinded by SOMETHING to think Zimmerman should be found guilty.

I've watched quite a bit of it, both prosecution and defense arguments. I know what I'm talking about. Zimmerman murdered a kid, its pretty sad.

I won't speculate as to why he did it exactly. Was it racism? Was it for other reasons? Who knows. I'm not going to accuse you of anything for believing otherwise.

Sir, you need to look up the legal definition of murder in both federal law and florida law, you really have no clue what you are talking about. If you have watched the trial then your response is even worse than those who have not, you ability to process information and comprehend it is severely diminished. I'm not saying you can't have the opinion he is guilty of killing this kid but murder by statutory definition it is not.

mur·der (mûrdr)
n.
1. The unlawful killing of one human by another, especially with premeditated malice.

Yep. And so?

you gave a dictionary definition, again cluing into your inability to digest and comprehend, let me go ahead and give you the FL statutory definition which the prosecution has to prove:

(3) When a human being is killed during the perpetration of, or during the attempt to perpetrate, any:
(a) Trafficking offense prohibited by s. 893.135(1),
(b) Arson,
(c) Sexual battery,
(d) Robbery,
(e) Burglary,
(f) Kidnapping,
(g) Escape,
(h) Aggravated child abuse,
(i) Aggravated abuse of an elderly person or disabled adult,
(j) Aircraft piracy,
(k) Unlawful throwing, placing, or discharging of a destructive device or bomb,
(l) Carjacking,
(m) Home-invasion robbery,
(n) Aggravated stalking,
(o) Murder of another human being,
(p) Aggravated fleeing or eluding with serious bodily injury or death,
(q) Resisting an officer with violence to his or her person, or
(r) Felony that is an act of terrorism or is in furtherance of an act of terrorism,
by a person other than the person engaged in the perpetration of or in the attempt to perpetrate such felony, the person perpetrating or attempting to perpetrate such felony commits murder in the second degree, which constitutes a felony of the first degree, punishable by imprisonment for a term of years not exceeding life or as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084.

They might have had a case if they tried to prove aggravated stalking but I am going to assume this is going to be supported by case law regarding traditional stalkers.

boredlimodriver

The racism surrounding this case is amazing.

And the only racist words ever spoken were from Trayvon Martin.

RECowgill

i guarantee 90% of the people in this thread have not watched one second of the case, or reviewed the evidence.

Otherwise they're just blinded by SOMETHING to think Zimmerman should be found guilty.

I've watched quite a bit of it, both prosecution and defense arguments. I know what I'm talking about. Zimmerman murdered a kid, its pretty sad.

I won't speculate as to why he did it exactly. Was it racism? Was it for other reasons? Who knows. I'm not going to accuse you of anything for believing otherwise.

Sir, you need to look up the legal definition of murder in both federal law and florida law, you really have no clue what you are talking about. If you have watched the trial then your response is even worse than those who have not, you ability to process information and comprehend it is severely diminished. I'm not saying you can't have the opinion he is guilty of killing this kid but murder by statutory definition it is not.

mur·der (mûrdr)
n.
1. The unlawful killing of one human by another, especially with premeditated malice.

Yep. And so?

Key word, UNLAWFUL. He was in his rights to defend himself. AKA, it wasn't murder.

It will be unlawful if the jury finds it to be so by their reasonable interpretation. In other words, if they decide it is self defense, his actions were lawful. That will be the jury's interpretation of the events and law. If however they believe Zimmerman stalked and murdered a kid, and don't buy into his version of events for whatever reason, then his actions were unlawful, and not self defense. He was the aggressor and he murdered, if that's how they choose to see it.

We'll have to accept whatever they decide. I know what I believe based on everything I've seen and heard. I hope you can accept it too.

ryry_

i guarantee 90% of the people in this thread have not watched one second of the case, or reviewed the evidence.

Otherwise they're just blinded by SOMETHING to think Zimmerman should be found guilty.

I've watched quite a bit of it, both prosecution and defense arguments. I know what I'm talking about. Zimmerman murdered a kid, its pretty sad.

I won't speculate as to why he did it exactly. Was it racism? Was it for other reasons? Who knows. I'm not going to accuse you of anything for believing otherwise.

Sir, you need to look up the legal definition of murder in both federal law and florida law, you really have no clue what you are talking about. If you have watched the trial then your response is even worse than those who have not, you ability to process information and comprehend it is severely diminished. I'm not saying you can't have the opinion he is guilty of killing this kid but murder by statutory definition it is not.

mur·der (mûrdr)
n.
1. The unlawful killing of one human by another, especially with premeditated malice.

Yep. And so?

Key word, UNLAWFUL. He was in his rights to defend himself. AKA, it wasn't murder.

Again, what evidence are you basing your conclusion on that he was definitively defending himself?

rduhlir

The racism surrounding this case is amazing.

And the only racist words ever spoken were from Trayvon Martin.

It is so bad that Florida has commercials out on tv requesting people to remain calm as the case comes to a close.

delaniecastillo

The racism surrounding this case is amazing.

And the only racist words ever spoken were from Trayvon Martin.

What was that? I am asking because I really don't know not to start a ruckus.

RECowgill

i guarantee 90% of the people in this thread have not watched one second of the case, or reviewed the evidence.

Otherwise they're just blinded by SOMETHING to think Zimmerman should be found guilty.

I've watched quite a bit of it, both prosecution and defense arguments. I know what I'm talking about. Zimmerman murdered a kid, its pretty sad.

I won't speculate as to why he did it exactly. Was it racism? Was it for other reasons? Who knows. I'm not going to accuse you of anything for believing otherwise.

Sir, you need to look up the legal definition of murder in both federal law and florida law, you really have no clue what you are talking about. If you have watched the trial then your response is even worse than those who have not, you ability to process information and comprehend it is severely diminished. I'm not saying you can't have the opinion he is guilty of killing this kid but murder by statutory definition it is not.

mur·der (mûrdr)
n.
1. The unlawful killing of one human by another, especially with premeditated malice.

Yep. And so?

you gave a dictionary definition, again cluing into your inability to digest and comprehend, let me go ahead and give you the FL statutory definition which the prosecution has to prove:

(3) When a human being is killed during the perpetration of, or during the attempt to perpetrate, any:
(a) Trafficking offense prohibited by s. 893.135(1),
(b) Arson,
(c) Sexual battery,
(d) Robbery,
(e) Burglary,
(f) Kidnapping,
(g) Escape,
(h) Aggravated child abuse,
(i) Aggravated abuse of an elderly person or disabled adult,
(j) Aircraft piracy,
(k) Unlawful throwing, placing, or discharging of a destructive device or bomb,
(l) Carjacking,
(m) Home-invasion robbery,
(n) Aggravated stalking,
(o) Murder of another human being,
(p) Aggravated fleeing or eluding with serious bodily injury or death,
(q) Resisting an officer with violence to his or her person, or
(r) Felony that is an act of terrorism or is in furtherance of an act of terrorism,
by a person other than the person engaged in the perpetration of or in the attempt to perpetrate such felony, the person perpetrating or attempting to perpetrate such felony commits murder in the second degree, which constitutes a felony of the first degree, punishable by imprisonment for a term of years not exceeding life or as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084.

They might have had a case if they tried to prove aggravated stalking but I am going to assume this is going to be supported by case law regarding traditional stalkers.

You insult me for quoting a source, then you give your own copy pasting of a source. :laugh:

RECowgill

i guarantee 90% of the people in this thread have not watched one second of the case, or reviewed the evidence.

Otherwise they're just blinded by SOMETHING to think Zimmerman should be found guilty.

I've watched quite a bit of it, both prosecution and defense arguments. I know what I'm talking about. Zimmerman murdered a kid, its pretty sad.

I won't speculate as to why he did it exactly. Was it racism? Was it for other reasons? Who knows. I'm not going to accuse you of anything for believing otherwise.

Sir, you need to look up the legal definition of murder in both federal law and florida law, you really have no clue what you are talking about. If you have watched the trial then your response is even worse than those who have not, you ability to process information and comprehend it is severely diminished. I'm not saying you can't have the opinion he is guilty of killing this kid but murder by statutory definition it is not.

mur·der (mûrdr)
n.
1. The unlawful killing of one human by another, especially with premeditated malice.

Yep. And so?

so if im driving in my car and hit someone, I should be convicted of murder?

no

Of course not. But thats not what this trial is and its not what Zimmerman did.

Zimmerman defended himself.

That is what you believe. If we were both on that jury we would be on opposite sides of the debate. But there's probably a good reason why neither of us are on that jury.

kiwidrop

I've been keeping up on the news, trial, and commentary, and there was no way to avoid ignorant people from going negative on this post. I always discouraged to see the blatant racism that still exists. Off my pedestal and on to my actual point.

We are 20 years past the riots after Rodney King! I just don't think that is going to happen if Zimmerman is found innocent. Granted, people will be mad, but I don't think we'll be reduced to rioting and destroying our own neighborhoods again. I'm just so tired of seeing these comments saying black people are going to riot. Saying all that, I hope this jury can see through the trash and find Zimmerman guilty....at least of manslaughter, if not 2nd degree.

There are twiiter accounts, facebook pages, etc dedicated to people saying they ARE going to riot if he is aquitted. Why would people not think this?

Link some? I haven't seen a single one. I don't believe there will be rioting over this, the assumption that blacks will riot seems itself questionable. Or its very selective cherry picking.

Thank you REC! If black people rioted every time we heard a bad verdict, it would look like Syria around here. Black riots haven't happened in over 20 years. If Zimmerman gets off, it just shows that another citizen has the power to shoot a kid (yes, he is a kid, no matter the size!) because of a stereotype or preconceived notion that he was a criminal.

ncahill77

i guarantee 90% of the people in this thread have not watched one second of the case, or reviewed the evidence.

Otherwise they're just blinded by SOMETHING to think Zimmerman should be found guilty.

I've watched quite a bit of it, both prosecution and defense arguments. I know what I'm talking about. Zimmerman murdered a kid, its pretty sad.

I won't speculate as to why he did it exactly. Was it racism? Was it for other reasons? Who knows. I'm not going to accuse you of anything for believing otherwise.

Sir, you need to look up the legal definition of murder in both federal law and florida law, you really have no clue what you are talking about. If you have watched the trial then your response is even worse than those who have not, you ability to process information and comprehend it is severely diminished. I'm not saying you can't have the opinion he is guilty of killing this kid but murder by statutory definition it is not.

mur·der (mûrdr)
n.
1. The unlawful killing of one human by another, especially with premeditated malice.

Yep. And so?

you gave a dictionary definition, again cluing into your inability to digest and comprehend, let me go ahead and give you the FL statutory definition which the prosecution has to prove:

(3) When a human being is killed during the perpetration of, or during the attempt to perpetrate, any:
(a) Trafficking offense prohibited by s. 893.135(1),
(b) Arson,
(c) Sexual battery,
(d) Robbery,
(e) Burglary,
(f) Kidnapping,
(g) Escape,
(h) Aggravated child abuse,
(i) Aggravated abuse of an elderly person or disabled adult,
(j) Aircraft piracy,
(k) Unlawful throwing, placing, or discharging of a destructive device or bomb,
(l) Carjacking,
(m) Home-invasion robbery,
(n) Aggravated stalking,
(o) Murder of another human being,
(p) Aggravated fleeing or eluding with serious bodily injury or death,
(q) Resisting an officer with violence to his or her person, or
(r) Felony that is an act of terrorism or is in furtherance of an act of terrorism,
by a person other than the person engaged in the perpetration of or in the attempt to perpetrate such felony, the person perpetrating or attempting to perpetrate such felony commits murder in the second degree, which constitutes a felony of the first degree, punishable by imprisonment for a term of years not exceeding life or as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084.

They might have had a case if they tried to prove aggravated stalking but I am going to assume this is going to be supported by case law regarding traditional stalkers.

You insult me for quoting a source, then you give your own copy pasting of a source. :laugh:

I copied the Florida Statute would you like it in bluebook legal citation format? here you go, feel free to look it up. I insulted you quoting a non legal source specifically the legal definition of the state the trial is in.
FLA STAT Sec. 782.04(3)

cmcollins001

My $.02:

911 =/= Police...911 operators are simply no more than customer service reps who are the middle man between the person calling and emergency services, aka: police, ambulance, fire dept. There are no "commands" given by 911, only suggestions and requests.

From my understanding, Zimmerman was going back to his vehicle when he was confronted and attacked by Martin. It is also my understanding that during the struggle, Zimmerman's shirt rode up and Martin noticed the gun and threatened to kill Zimmerman. From what I read this is what is being reported by Zimmerman: "You are going to die tonight" Zimmerman said Martin threatened him. Zimmerman said he felt Martin going for Zimmerman’s gun." Zimmerman had every right to carry his gun legally. It was not his intention (I believe) to go looking to shoot the next person to cross his path, or to even pull his gun that night....if it was, why be on the phone with 911?

If my son, who was 17 at the time this occurred were to cut through a gated community, be confronted by an adult about his actions, he would not run, he would not disrespect the adult, he would not threaten to beat the adult...he would answer the questions and if there was going to be trouble, he would call me. Zimmerman did not get out of his car with intent of accosting Martin, if that were his intentions then why was he on the phone with 911? He was investigating an unknown person in a gated community after a string of break ins and robberies in the neighborhood.

Do I feel that a lot of things could have been handled differently by both sides? Yes I do. Fact of the matter though, they weren't.
From what I've been following, the prosecution is having a hard time establishing guilt of murder 2 beyond a reasonable doubt. Do I think Zimmerman handled the situation correctly? Not entirely. But what has already happened can not be changed.
And unless they can prove that Zimmerman actually committed a crime according to the laws of Florida, then I don't think he should be punished simply for publicity sake.

Just because Martin was 17, doesn't mean he's automatically an innocent child. He's capable of committing murder or inflicting serious bodily harm on someone else. If Martin had succeeded in either smothering Zimmerman to death, or taking his gun and shooting him, or beating him to death, we would have never heard about this case.