And it sounds like you've been giving these shows ratings.. which is why they keep bringing him back.
Don't make stupid assumptions.
The Zimmerman Trial: Justice for Trayvon! (Let's discuss it)
- Thread starter code_pirahna
- Start date
Don't make stupid assumptions.
this is an easy case for me:
question #1: what crime was committed THAT night in that neighborhood?
question #2: if no crime was committed, why is Mr. Martin a 'suspect,' and referred to those that 'always get away?'
question #3: if a crime was committed, are YOU (zimmerman) authorized to confront a criminal with a weapon and take the apprehension into your own hands?
conclusion: if no crime was committed, then zimmerman was clearly assuming one was GOING TO BE committed... and that Martin 'looked like the criminals,' which leads directly into PROFILING AND PURPOSEFUL CONFRONTATION USING "GUN COURAGE."
and since zimmerman AGREES that he intentionally killed Martin, manslaughter is the charge because the state didn't/couldn't ask the questions above directly to zimmerman... to get into his thought process.
question #1: what crime was committed THAT night in that neighborhood?
question #2: if no crime was committed, why is Mr. Martin a 'suspect,' and referred to those that 'always get away?'
question #3: if a crime was committed, are YOU (zimmerman) authorized to confront a criminal with a weapon and take the apprehension into your own hands?
conclusion: if no crime was committed, then zimmerman was clearly assuming one was GOING TO BE committed... and that Martin 'looked like the criminals,' which leads directly into PROFILING AND PURPOSEFUL CONFRONTATION USING "GUN COURAGE."
and since zimmerman AGREES that he intentionally killed Martin, manslaughter is the charge because the state didn't/couldn't ask the questions above directly to zimmerman... to get into his thought process.
this is an easy case for me:
question #1: what crime was committed THAT night in that neighborhood?
question #2: if no crime was committed, why is Mr. Martin a 'suspect,' and referred to those that 'always get away?'
question #3: if a crime was committed, are YOU (zimmerman) authorized to confront a criminal with a weapon and take the apprehension into your own hands?
conclusion: if no crime was committed, then zimmerman was clearly assuming one was GOING TO BE committed... and that Martin 'looked like the criminals,' which leads directly into PROFILING AND PURPOSEFUL CONFRONTATION USING "GUN COURAGE."
and since zimmerman AGREES that he intentionally killed Martin, manslaughter is the charge because the state didn't/couldn't ask the questions above directly to zimmerman... to get into his thought process.
question #1: what crime was committed THAT night in that neighborhood?
question #2: if no crime was committed, why is Mr. Martin a 'suspect,' and referred to those that 'always get away?'
question #3: if a crime was committed, are YOU (zimmerman) authorized to confront a criminal with a weapon and take the apprehension into your own hands?
conclusion: if no crime was committed, then zimmerman was clearly assuming one was GOING TO BE committed... and that Martin 'looked like the criminals,' which leads directly into PROFILING AND PURPOSEFUL CONFRONTATION USING "GUN COURAGE."
and since zimmerman AGREES that he intentionally killed Martin, manslaughter is the charge because the state didn't/couldn't ask the questions above directly to zimmerman... to get into his thought process.
How much do we speculate?
After clarification they may find manslaughter not harsh enough, or one could look at it as clear indication they are not considering acquittal.
jury is asking a question, they have not given a verdict
it does not mean a guilty or non-guilty verdict
they want a simple clarification
The only safe speculation at this point would be that murder2 is off the table. The analysis starts at murder and you dont get to manslaughter until murder is eliminated from the discussion (typically). So its "probably" safe to say that they have moved on the manslaughter....Unless they are specifically trying to distinguish one from the other before deciding on either.How much do we speculate?
After clarification they may find manslaughter not harsh enough, or one could look at it as clear indication they are not considering acquittal.
But i think the most likely deduction here is that they have moved past murder2.
In your haste to twirl and sashay into my post, you assumed that I watched the show when I only saw it in this thread.And it sounds like you've been giving these shows ratings.. which is why they keep bringing him back.
You didn't even notice that I did not remember the Dr's name.
In your haste to twirl and sashay into my post, you assumed that I watched the show when I only saw it in this thread.
You didn't even notice that I did not remember the Dr's name.
Don't make stupid assumptions.
Maannnn... I ain't e-beefing in this thread.. All I'm saying is, why do you give a fuck what Laffy Taaffe says unless you watch those shows?..
I'm saying, why do you give a fuck what Laffy Taaffe says unless you watch those shows?..
I'm not going to entertain your rubbish.
Let's focus on the trial
He typed 100 paragraphs to say white people at a restaurant shook their heads about Zimmerman so he feels good about the case.
Wow.
"extra piece of cornbread"
I'm not going to entertain your rubbish.
Let's focus on the trial
Man, don't play that game with me...
The only reason I even know Frank Taaffe exists is because of you niggas are constantly posting his comments.
Fuck Frank Taaffe. I have no interest in what that racist idiot thinks about this case. Nor do I waste time watching the shows he guests on.
I think the jury just asked for clarification on manslaughter....
i think murder 2 is shot down....
that was hard anyway cause they had to prove malice.....
i think murder 2 is shot down....
that was hard anyway cause they had to prove malice.....
Its either gonna be manslaughter or he walks.....
this case screams manslaughter......but.......I still think he s gonna walk.....
I wont believe it until I hear it majority of the jurors are gun owners I agree Manslaughter should be the charge.
Inquiring about the manslaughter charge is a good thing. It means someone thinks it is appropriate and that someone is arguing FOR it. If they took the question to the court, then the person(s) arguing against it can probably be swayed with clarification. Or, at the very least, if decided to be appropriate, would be unlikely to go against the group if the majority would like him charged.
Last edited:
But they sent a note back requesting a specific question from them, and we haven't heard back...
Not sure if that's a good thing, or a bad thing..
Last edited:
Yo...that Channa Lloyd the intern....cotdamn she got some nice hips.....
fuck...I m helpless.....Sexy wide hips on a woman is my kryptonite....
gimmie more kryptonite......
fuck...I m helpless.....Sexy wide hips on a woman is my kryptonite....
gimmie more kryptonite......
Why does the Martin family have these retarded ass lawyers tho. They can't even speak clearly, and stumble of the most simplistic words.. They seriously need to seek new counsel for their civil trial..
Trust me, it's a good thing. They are considering it. If they weren't trying to charge him with something, it wouldn't be up for discussion.
True, but as I think about it more, it could be just ONE juror considering it, and the rest are trying to talk her out of it..
The fact that they didn't ask a follow up question shows they aren't too concerned with the topic as a whole..
I was thinking this too.
No, they would bully her to talk her out of it and over ride her, even if she had a strong personality. They wouldn't go to the court unless a majority or even half was for it. These women want to go home. Y'all dismiss womenfolx on this board but when a woman tells you how other women think, listen up.
Several of these mofos, however she's not a bad looking chick
i like her skin tone, i'm sure if rachel dropped a few lbs she'd be ok
Zimmerman jury asks for 'clarification' on manslaughter charge
SANFORD, Fla--After more than 12 hours of deliberation, the jury in the George Zimmerman case has asked the court for "clarification" on the charge of manslaughter. The question is likely to make the defense nervous, since it suggests the all-female jury could be seriously weighing a conviction on the lesser charge in the case.
Both the prosecution and defense agreed that the jurors need to ask a more specific question, saying they cannot engage in "general discussions" about the charge. Judge Debra Nelson agreed to send the attorneys' response back to the jurors around 7:00 p.m. Saturday night.
Zimmerman, a 29-year-old volunteer neighborhood watchman, is charged with second-degree murder in the death of 17-year-old Trayvon Martin, whom the defendant shot during a scuffle in a nearby gated community on Feb 26, 2012. The jury was also told it could convict Zimmerman on the lesser charge of manslaughter, or acquit him as not guilty of any crime. Zimmerman argued he acted in self defense.
The jury was told in its instructions that Zimmerman merited a manslaughter charge if he killed Martin intentionally and the killing was not justified.
The jurors deliberated for 12.5 hours--including a one-hour lunch during which they were allowed to discuss the case--before alerting the court they had a question. "May we please have clarification on the instructions regarding manslaughter?" the question read. The sequestered, anonymous jurors have only made one other request during their deliberations--for an itemized list of all the evidence presented during the trial on Friday.
For the jury to convict Zimmerman of second-degree murder, the prosecution would have to prove that Zimmerman had “a depraved mind without regard for human life” when he shot Martin. A lesser manslaughter conviction could be handed down if the jury believes Zimmerman had no lawful reason to kill Martin. Zimmerman is legally justified in killing Martin if the jury finds he had a “reasonable” belief that his own life was in jeopardy or that he could suffer bodily harm from Martin.
In closing arguments Friday, Assistant District Attorney John Guy argued that it was the unarmed Martin who tried to defend himself. “Ask yourself, ‘Who lost the fight?’” Guy said. “That child had every right to be afraid of a strange man following him, first in his car and then on foot. And did that child not have the right to defend himself from that strange man?”
Zimmerman’s attorney Mark O’Mara argued over three hours in his closing remarks that Martin was not “unarmed.” He dragged out a chunk of concrete and laid it in front of the jury to make the point that Martin used the pavement as a “weapon” against his client when he allegedly slammed his head against it in their scuffle.
Before beginning their deliberations, jurors received the following instructions pertaining to manslaughter:
MANSLAUGHTER
To prove the crime of Manslaughter, the State must prove the following two elements beyond a reasonable doubt:
1. Trayvon Martin is dead.
2. George Zimmerman intentionally committed an act or acts that caused the death of Trayvon Martin.
George Zimmerman cannot be guilty of manslaughter by committing a merely negligent act or if the killing was either justifiable or excusable homicide:
Each of us has a duty to act reasonably toward others. If there is a violation of that duty, without any conscious intention to harm, that violation is negligence.
The killing of a human being is justifiable homicide and lawful if necessarily done while resisting an attempt to murder or commit a felony upon George Zimmerman, or to commit a felony in any dwelling house in which George Zimmerman was at the time of the killing.
The killing of a human being is excusable, and therefore lawful, under any one of the following three circumstances:
1. When the killing is committed by accident and misfortune in doing any lawful act by lawful means with usual ordinary caution and without any unlawful intent, or
2. When the killing occurs by accident and misfortune in the heat of passion, upon any sudden and sufficient provocation, or
3. When the killing is committed by accident and misfortune resulting from a sudden combat, if a dangerous weapon is not used and the killing is not done in a cruel or unusual manner.
In order to convict of manslaughter by act, it is not necessary for the State to prove that George Zimmerman had an intent to cause death, only an intent to commit an act that was not merely negligent, justified, or excusable and which caused death.
If you find George Zimmerman committed Manslaughter, and you also find beyond a reasonable doubt that during the commission of the Manslaughter, George Zimmerman carried, displayed, used, threatened to use, or attempted to use a firearm, you should check the appropriate box on the verdict form which I will discuss with you later in these instructions.
SANFORD, Fla--After more than 12 hours of deliberation, the jury in the George Zimmerman case has asked the court for "clarification" on the charge of manslaughter. The question is likely to make the defense nervous, since it suggests the all-female jury could be seriously weighing a conviction on the lesser charge in the case.
Both the prosecution and defense agreed that the jurors need to ask a more specific question, saying they cannot engage in "general discussions" about the charge. Judge Debra Nelson agreed to send the attorneys' response back to the jurors around 7:00 p.m. Saturday night.
Zimmerman, a 29-year-old volunteer neighborhood watchman, is charged with second-degree murder in the death of 17-year-old Trayvon Martin, whom the defendant shot during a scuffle in a nearby gated community on Feb 26, 2012. The jury was also told it could convict Zimmerman on the lesser charge of manslaughter, or acquit him as not guilty of any crime. Zimmerman argued he acted in self defense.
The jury was told in its instructions that Zimmerman merited a manslaughter charge if he killed Martin intentionally and the killing was not justified.
The jurors deliberated for 12.5 hours--including a one-hour lunch during which they were allowed to discuss the case--before alerting the court they had a question. "May we please have clarification on the instructions regarding manslaughter?" the question read. The sequestered, anonymous jurors have only made one other request during their deliberations--for an itemized list of all the evidence presented during the trial on Friday.
For the jury to convict Zimmerman of second-degree murder, the prosecution would have to prove that Zimmerman had “a depraved mind without regard for human life” when he shot Martin. A lesser manslaughter conviction could be handed down if the jury believes Zimmerman had no lawful reason to kill Martin. Zimmerman is legally justified in killing Martin if the jury finds he had a “reasonable” belief that his own life was in jeopardy or that he could suffer bodily harm from Martin.
In closing arguments Friday, Assistant District Attorney John Guy argued that it was the unarmed Martin who tried to defend himself. “Ask yourself, ‘Who lost the fight?’” Guy said. “That child had every right to be afraid of a strange man following him, first in his car and then on foot. And did that child not have the right to defend himself from that strange man?”
Zimmerman’s attorney Mark O’Mara argued over three hours in his closing remarks that Martin was not “unarmed.” He dragged out a chunk of concrete and laid it in front of the jury to make the point that Martin used the pavement as a “weapon” against his client when he allegedly slammed his head against it in their scuffle.
Before beginning their deliberations, jurors received the following instructions pertaining to manslaughter:
MANSLAUGHTER
To prove the crime of Manslaughter, the State must prove the following two elements beyond a reasonable doubt:
1. Trayvon Martin is dead.
2. George Zimmerman intentionally committed an act or acts that caused the death of Trayvon Martin.
George Zimmerman cannot be guilty of manslaughter by committing a merely negligent act or if the killing was either justifiable or excusable homicide:
Each of us has a duty to act reasonably toward others. If there is a violation of that duty, without any conscious intention to harm, that violation is negligence.
The killing of a human being is justifiable homicide and lawful if necessarily done while resisting an attempt to murder or commit a felony upon George Zimmerman, or to commit a felony in any dwelling house in which George Zimmerman was at the time of the killing.
The killing of a human being is excusable, and therefore lawful, under any one of the following three circumstances:
1. When the killing is committed by accident and misfortune in doing any lawful act by lawful means with usual ordinary caution and without any unlawful intent, or
2. When the killing occurs by accident and misfortune in the heat of passion, upon any sudden and sufficient provocation, or
3. When the killing is committed by accident and misfortune resulting from a sudden combat, if a dangerous weapon is not used and the killing is not done in a cruel or unusual manner.
In order to convict of manslaughter by act, it is not necessary for the State to prove that George Zimmerman had an intent to cause death, only an intent to commit an act that was not merely negligent, justified, or excusable and which caused death.
If you find George Zimmerman committed Manslaughter, and you also find beyond a reasonable doubt that during the commission of the Manslaughter, George Zimmerman carried, displayed, used, threatened to use, or attempted to use a firearm, you should check the appropriate box on the verdict form which I will discuss with you later in these instructions.
If this cac walks, Florida needs to be burn down
Anybody watching Dr Drew!! Miss Ali almost made the Lawyer made shit bricks for insulting her
''He said my hat wearing friend''
She called him the devil
Anybody watching Dr Drew!! Miss Ali almost made the Lawyer made shit bricks for insulting her
Similar threads
