Irvine511
Blue Crack Supplier
I can't stand the phrase "play the race card."
We'll see if the verdict (assuming it comes back not guilty) is a result of (1) the prosecution failing to prove the murder charge, or (2) the successful use of the self-defense argument by the defendant.
But it isn't a stand your ground case.
I can't stand the phrase "play the race card."
The thing that really bugs me about this thread is that the excuses are already being set up for if he is judged to be not guilty. "The prosecution is bumbling the case" "witness x did poorly" "they overreached by not going for manslaughter". Is there not a chance he might be telling the truth and the trial will reveal that? The best of all is "I know he's not telling the truth"; when again did he take the stand?
Has the prosecution done an outstanding job?
Was murder an appropriate charge under the circumstances?
How is it wrong to feel that Zimmerman's story does not add up to innocence on his part?
I don't see all of this adds up to "excuses."
I doubt there's a black person in America that saw this as a "slam-dunk" and is now scrambling for excuses for why it didn't pan out that way.
Which "people" were describing murder?See above. And when listening to the debates here and elsewhere for the past several months, a murder charge seemed to be the circumstances people were describing.
Welcome to the reality of the system my friend. Lesser charges are very common, I don't think that says much at all. In this particular case I believe the murder charge was the result of caving into the emotions of the people rather than looking at the evidence.If it's necessary to try for a lesser charge because it's easier for a conviction, that says something in and of itself.
Which "people" were describing murder?
Welcome to the reality of the system my friend. Lesser charges are very common, I don't think that says much at all. In this particular case I believe the murder charge was the result of caving into the emotions of the people rather than looking at the evidence.
I guess the same "people" you're talking about below?
"The prosecution is bumbling the case" "witness x did poorly" "they overreached by not going for manslaughter"
Well wouldn't that be proof that the prosecution bumbled the case by listening to the "people" instead of the evidence?
You're calling it "excuses" as if some are trying to preempt a decision not going their way, but I think most of us are saying the murder charge was wrong from the beginning.
And all of this presupposes that he's guilty. It's a convenient out if the verdict is not guilty. "well, he would've been guilty had they just gone for manslaughter"
And all of this presupposes that he's guilty. It's a convenient out if the verdict is not guilty. "well, he would've been guilty had they just gone for manslaughter"
The thing is, it isn't a game. There was a real series of events that unfolded. How would you judge a prosecution team tasked with proving the guilt of an innocent man? Is it not completely possible that the prosecution is doing the best job possible with the available evidence because Zimmerman is indeed not guilty? How would you rate a prosecution team who successfully sent an innocent person to prison?
There was a comment earlier about what a shitty job the Medical Examiner did. I asked what the problem was, as I didn't really follow the testimony, but nobody replied. It seems to me that, of all the witnesses brought forward, a Medical Examiner would be giving some of the more objective information in the case. How does one mess that up? Was he not giving the answers the prosecution would hope for?
If it's necessary to try for a lesser charge because it's easier for a conviction, that says something in and of itself.
Do you mean that, even if Zimmerman's story is completely truthful, there was still a crime committed?
Why a black person? I mentioned the discussion in this thread. I'm not sure everyone's races here, but I assume most are white
If you think the case is being 'bumbled', it betrays your prejudice
If you think the case is being 'bumbled', it betrays your prejudice
I can't stand the phrase "play the race card."
Do you have a preferred phrase or description for the implication of racial prejudice without factual evidence?
If you think the case is being 'bumbled', it betrays your prejudice
The lack of factual evidence doesn't mean that the prejudice isn't there. Nor does it mean that the prejudice is there.
Therein lies the rub.
Much in the realm of racial prejudice is very difficult to prove.
Much like our criminal system, where we have the presumption of innocence, I would suggest that the burden remains on the person making the accusation of prejudice to offer specific evidence of such.
Unfortunately, we've crossed over into a mentality that the charge can be made and it is up to the accused to prove their innocence.
I'm gonna call bullshit on this.
Particularly because I know you can take it with out throwing a fit.
Was your favorite toy as a kid Stretch Armstrong?
I would disagree if the criticism of the Prosecutor's handling the case was done on a objective peer-review basis.
Even as a seasoned attorney, I would not venture to second guess the Prosecutor's ability with any specificity. Also, we forget the big wild card of the jury (which is given wide latitude in weighing evidence).
This is just it though. So many arm chair lawyers and declarations of "I know he's not telling the truth".
"Oh, you watched it on the TV all day, did you?"
Do you have a preferred phrase or description for the implication of racial prejudice without factual evidence?
Today, I found out that the gun was actually holstered on GZ's right side rather than in his back waistband which, if true, does cause me to readdress the story over the struggle for the gun
Do you remember where you found that out? Only asking because I believe he told the police he had it in the back waistband, and demonstrated that to them. His different versions of the events have many inconsistencies, from what I've had the limited time to read online that's what the prosecutor focused on in his closing. If someone has different versions of the same event, and they have motive and ability to lie (only other true witness is dead), that quacks like a duck to me.
Were yours paint chips and a Carlos Mencia joke book?
Manslaughter is a lesser included offense to second-degree murder; there'd be nothing stopping a jury from convicting Zimmerman of the lesser charge, should they reject both his self-defense claim and the prosecution's attempt to prove murder 2. It's possible they deliberately overcharged in an attempt to bait him into a plea deal; though that's unethical, prosecutors do it all the time, often with strong approval from the community which sees it as "tough on crime."
It's also possible Zimmerman's lawyer could skip SYG altogether and just go for self-defense; while that shifts the burden of proof to the defense, it'd also offer the advantage(?) that Zimmerman wouldn't have to take the stand and submit to cross-examination.
yes, I agree
looking in here a bit
I had been planning on saying it is not overcharged at all
they can always end up at manslaughter.
I still say Zimmerman the minority American (Latino) is responsible for the unjustified killing of Martin the minority American.
I did see a clip of Zimmerman's court appearance, they must have dubbed it in English. He did not sound or look Latino at all.