Will jurors just forget what they heard?

Status
Not open for further replies.
I have been in many fights as a young man. I have someone sit on my chest and punch me repeatedly, choke me, etc. If his head was repeatedly bounced off the ground then MAYBE, but there is no evidence that is what happened. He had some head wounds but was there was no testimony of concussion, which is the ONLY evidence that he would have suffered ANY traumatic brain injury. No TBI and IMO no reasonable belief that you were in any danger of imminent death or great bodily injury. The evidence I have read or seen says to me nothing more than he probably shouldn't have been following someone because he was going to get his ass kicked.

Your inclusion of no brain damage would seem to suggest that Zimmerman was aware, at that time, that Martin wasn't going to continue and that there was no possiblility of any damage.
You're smart enough and knowledgeable enough to know that there have been people who were hit in the head and died days later, without any outward sign of a problem.

Let me punch you in the nose, which causes dazing and confusion, and after you hit the ground, let me sit on your chest and assault you.
You can even carry a cap gun and if I get control of it......!
I'll stop, when you say you think you're in immenent danger of your life.
NO HONEST, I'll stop.
 
In court the video of Zimmy a year ago with his lawyer sitting right next to him the interviewer asked him if he regretting getting out of the car to Follow Trayvon and he said no.

He admitted on TV that he stalked trayvon.

Now in court he says he didn't.

Post a link, you fucking psychopath, that shows him saying he stalked Marty.
 
I think it's becoming fairly clear that the Prosecution has over reached with a 2nd Degree murder charge. Still, I would say that a manslaughter conviction for Mr. Zimmerman are a distinct possibility but, for that to happen, I think the prosecution will have to accept that they have over reached.

So what part of this, do you think applies?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manslaughter

Voluntary manslaughter
Voluntary manslaughter occurs either when the defendant kills with malice aforethought (intention to kill or cause serious harm), but there are mitigating circumstances which reduce culpability, or when the defendant kills only with an intent to cause serious bodily harm. Voluntary manslaughter in some jurisdictions is a lesser included offense of murder. The traditional mitigating factor was provocation; however, others have been added in various jurisdictions.

Involuntary manslaughter
Involuntary manslaughter is the unlawful killing of a human being without malice aforethought, either express or implied. It is distinguished from voluntary manslaughter by the absence of intention. It is normally divided into two categories; constructive manslaughter and criminally negligent manslaughter, both of which involve criminal liability.

Constructive manslaughter
Constructive manslaughter is also referred to as ‘unlawful act’ manslaughter. It is based on the doctrine of constructive malice, whereby the malicious intent inherent in the commission of a crime is considered to apply to the consequences of that crime. It occurs when someone kills, without intent, in the course of committing an unlawful act. The malice involved in the crime is transferred to the killing, resulting in a charge of manslaughter.

Criminally negligent manslaughter
Criminally negligent manslaughter is variously referred to as criminally negligent homicide in the United States, gross negligence manslaughter in England and Wales. In Scotland and some Commonwealth of Nations jurisdictions the offence of culpable homicide might apply.

It occurs where death results from serious negligence, or, in some jurisdictions, serious recklessness. A high degree of negligence is required to warrant criminal liability. A related concept is that of willful blindness, which is where a defendant intentionally puts himself in a position where he will be unaware of facts which would render him liable.

Criminally negligent manslaughter occurs where there is an omission to act when there is a duty to do so, or a failure to perform a duty owed, which leads to a death. The existence of the duty is essential because the law does not impose criminal liability for a failure to act unless a specific duty is owed to the victim. It is most common in the case of professionals who are grossly negligent in the course of their employment. An example is where a doctor fails to notice a patient's oxygen supply has disconnected and the patient dies (R v Adomako).
 
And the evidence that shows he's lying is where?



Refer to the OP for police assessment of Zimmerman's statements and the veracity they were given.



There is no evidence to disprove Zimmerman's claim that Martin reached for the gun.

Again, the burden is on the prosecution to prove Zimmerman's depraved state of mind was the primary cause of Martin's death and not a reasonable fear that Zimmerman's life was in danger.

Depraved state of mind vs. reasonable fear.

There is no need to prove he's lying. There are many inconsistencies in his story, though.
 
No speculation; but instead a comment based on what has been presented.

By the way, you were the first one to bring up the struggle in your exchange with Socrtease.



Or did you forget that you were speculating that such an incident was "rather improbable"?

It is not speculating to cast doubt on a claim.

You are an idiot.
 
But they do have to present evidence that would show that the defendant's statement is untrue; otherwise the defendant's statement stands.
Without them presenting such evidence; all they would have to do is say "We don't believe him, case closed".
Which is exactly what the majority of the left, on this site, have done.

For example:
Zimmerman has stated that he shot Martin, while Martin was sitting on top of him.
The autopsy will be able to show if the shot was at an upwards angle or not.
How were Martin's arms positioned; because our body parts and muscles change position, as we move
All of this information is more then likely going to substantiate Zimmerman's comments.

The jury has no obligation to assume the statements made to the police were true. You don't know what you are talking about.
 
I think it's becoming fairly clear that the Prosecution has over reached with a 2nd Degree murder charge. Still, I would say that a manslaughter conviction for Mr. Zimmerman are a distinct possibility but, for that to happen, I think the prosecution will have to accept that they have over reached.

Manslaughter is a lesser included charge and the jury will be instructed to consider it.
 
OK; so is it reasonable to think that your life is in imminent danger, while someone is sitting on your chest and pounding your head into the sidewalk?

That's not what Zimmerman claimed was happening at the point he chose to shoot Martin. The proof that any of that happened depends on Zimmerman and his credibility. I don't buy his story and there is no reason to assume the jury will, but there could be enough reasonable doubt, especially, on the murder 2.
 
Yeak, OK, but are you going to get off your fat ass and 'riot and break shit' when Zimmy is acquitted?

You are projecting tub o lard.

First spot we hit was my music shop
it only took one brick to make that window drop
I finally got my own pa
Where do you think I got this guitar that your hearing today
 
HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA
Speculate
To engage in a course of reasoning often based on inconclusive evidence


You're speculating.

Not at all. I have yet to do so. I am saying the defense's evidence is inconclusive.

Meanwhile, what you are doing is bit more than speculating. You are imagining things for which there is no proof.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top