Started By
Message
re: Zimmerman not guilty
Posted on 7/14/13 at 1:22 am to CHSgc
Posted on 7/14/13 at 1:22 am to CHSgc
quote:
I'm an attorney.
You're either a very bad one or trolling. I'll grant you the benefit of the doubt and assume the latter. Regardless of your profession, your initial post wasn't fueled by anything taught in law school.
quote:
Consider why Trayvon might've used force. He was confronted, likely in a hostile manner (by an armed civilian), by a person who had an established motive, who was ignoring the advice of professionals.
NONE of this can be even remotely proven with the given evidence. Even it could be, being confronted in a hostile tone is no legal excuse for using violent force. You might be interested to know (or just ignoring) that even the prosecution acknowledged that the first physical act was very possibly and even likely initiated by Trayvon.
Also, the police never told him not to follow. Ever. The dispatcher said you don't HAVE to follow. This a lie that everyone has seemingly bought into.
quote:
The statutory definition of manslaughter is a PERFECTLY REASONABLE fit for this sort of case.
Manslaughter requires that one commits an action that directly leads to the death of another. Those actions are superceded by one's right to defend themselves. Even if Zimmerman was yelling nasty things and telling Martin to not move until police got there, Zimmerman was justified if Martin initiated the fight and Zimmerman sustained the type of injuries the evidence indicates he did.
1
Posted on 7/14/13 at 1:29 am to Roger Klarvin
quote:
Speculation.
If you were a lawyer, you'd know that speculation does not fly in court. More so, I would argue that there is actual evidence to the contrary.
The "speculation" would make a good case. And even so, you are only privileged to use the degree of force used against you. There is substantially little evidence to suggest that Martin used deadly force against Zimmerman.
quote:
The Prosecution failed miserably at this
Agreed.
quote:
NONE of this can be even remotely proven with the given evidence. Even it could be, being confronted in a hostile tone is no legal excuse for using violent force. You might be interested to know (or just ignoring) that even the prosecution acknowledged that the first physical act was very possibly and even likely initiated by Trayvon.
Yep, it was def initiated by Trayvon. An armed man got out of his car, against professional advice, and pursued him.
And if Trayvon did initiate contact (however unlikely that may be) then GZ has a case against him for assault and battery. But to speculate that Martin wanted GZ dead and attacked him w/ that intent is no different than speculating that Zimmerman assaulted Martin in the first place.
quote:
Also, the police never told him not to follow. Ever. The dispatcher said you don't HAVE to follow. This a lie that everyone has seemingly bought into.
They said "we don't need you to do that" ...nor is it an accepted understanding that civilians should confront potentially dangerous suspects in the street alone.
quote:
Manslaughter requires that one commits an action that directly leads to the death of another. Those actions are superceded by one's right to defend themselves
No, dummy, this is so wrong as to be unworthy of a response.
Page 1 of 1
Popular
Back to top
Follow SECRant for SEC Football News