TakeYouToTasker Posted June 28, 2013 Share Posted June 28, 2013 (edited) conversation with dispatch and colaboration from Travons friend proves Zimmerman continued to be the aggressor chasing a man who had commited no crime. Following someone does not constitue "being an aggressor", nor is it illegal. What is considered being an aggressor is initiating a physical confrontation. There are no eye-witness accounts stating that Mr. Zimmerman initiated a physical confrontation. Additionally, following =/ chasing. We have testimony from a key witness for the prosecution that Mr. Martin did not feel the need to flee; and flight is a key component of chase. Zimmerman followed Martin. He did not chase him. Finally, Zimmerman was not "told to stand down by police". He was advised by a dispatcher that following Martin was unnecessary, and this was for his own saftey. He then stated that he would get out of his truck so that he could get better look at a street sign for the dispatcher, to which the dispatcher consented. which is why Zimmerman will be convicted of manslaughter in my opinion. It's OK have have poor and uninformed opinions; but that doesn't make those opinions valuable or equal to good and informed opinions. I'd rather have a good and informed opinion, especially if I was making that opinion public, but hey, thats just me. Edited June 28, 2013 by TakeYouToTasker Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Donald Duck Posted June 28, 2013 Share Posted June 28, 2013 Do you think that Trayvon was equally negligent for ignoring Jeantel's order for him to run to the house rather than confront Zimmerman? your unbillievable man Following someone does not constitue "being an aggressor", nor is it illegal. What is considered being an aggressor is initiating a physical confrontation. There are no eye-witness accounts stating that Mr. Zimmerman wainitiated a physical confrontation. Additionally, following =/ chasing. We have testimony from a key witness for the procecution that Mr. Martin did not feel the need to flee; and flight is a key component of chase. Zimmerman followed Martin. He did not chase him. Finally, Zimmerman was not "told to stand down by police". He was advised by a dispatcher that following Martin was unnecessary, and this was for his own saftey. He then stated that he would get out of his truck so that he could get better look at a street sign for the dispatcher, to which the dispatcher consented. It's OK have have poor and uninformed opinions; but that doesn't make those opinions valuable or equal to good and informed opinions. I'd rather have a good and informed opinion, especially if I was making that opinion public, but hey, thats just me. when does following become stalking? when someones dead? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
boyst Posted June 28, 2013 Share Posted June 28, 2013 Wow. Dog. Change it to lamb. You're being slaughtered. I'd joke and say o change it ti trayvon. But even he had a chance... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Just Jack Posted June 28, 2013 Share Posted June 28, 2013 Are you saying Zimmerman can't be convicted of manslaughter, because I was under the impression that he could It is my understanding (I am not a lawyer and have not stayed at a Holiday Inn Express lately) that he currently is only charged with 2nd degree murder. In order to try him on manslaughter (voluntary/involuntary), he needs to be charged with that and another trial would need to take place. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TakeYouToTasker Posted June 28, 2013 Share Posted June 28, 2013 when does following become stalking? when someones dead? Stalking is a legal term driven both by the intent of the stalker, and the perception of the stalkee. We know that the intent of Zimmerman was not intending to menace or cause fear, which are key components of stalking, because he was in contact with police attempting to report a crime, and was asking for them to come to the scene so that he could extract himself from the situation. Without intent to menace or cause fear on the part of Zimmerman, the act of following was not stalking. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
meazza Posted June 28, 2013 Share Posted June 28, 2013 It is my understanding (I am not a lawyer and have not stayed at a Holiday Inn Express lately) that he currently is only charged with 2nd degree murder. In order to try him on manslaughter (voluntary/involuntary), he needs to be charged with that and another trial would need to take place. Happens to me all the time. I go in for a traffic violation and come out being charged with 1st degree murder. Stalking is a legal term driven both by the intent of the stalker, and the perception of the stalkee. We know that the intent of Zimmerman was not intending to menace or cause fear, which are key components of stalking, because he was in contact with police attempting to report a crime, and was asking for them to come to the scene so that he could extract himself from the situation. Without intent to menace or cause fear on the part of Zimmerman, the act of following was not stalking. Plenty of stalkers call 9/11 while they are stalking. It just makes them more bad-ass Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Donald Duck Posted June 28, 2013 Share Posted June 28, 2013 Wow. Dog. Change it to lamb. You're being slaughtered. I'd joke and say o change it ti trayvon. But even he had a chance... seriously, lol, my opinion on the case is Zimmerman gets convicted of manslaughter, so lets see whos right and whos wrong, shall we... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
boyst Posted June 28, 2013 Share Posted June 28, 2013 seriously, lol, my opinion on the case is Zimmerman gets convicted of manslaughter, so lets see whos right and whos wrong, shall we... nah. He will leave with a ticket for 43 in a 35 while in a work zone.... Seriously. You ain't ti bright , son. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TakeYouToTasker Posted June 28, 2013 Share Posted June 28, 2013 (edited) seriously, lol, my opinion on the case is Zimmerman gets convicted of manslaughter, so lets see whos right and whos wrong, shall we... OJ Simpson was aquitted of murder. Does that mean he didn't kill Nicole Brown Simpson, or does that mean that it's likely that justice was not done at trial? Does it mean that those who believe that OJ Simpson did not kill Nicole Brown Simpson are correct? Edited June 28, 2013 by TakeYouToTasker Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
unbillievable Posted June 28, 2013 Share Posted June 28, 2013 Is there any proof that it was Zimmerman's gun? I know George said it was his but, he's a proven liar, so we can't trust what he says... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joe Miner Posted June 28, 2013 Share Posted June 28, 2013 It is my understanding (I am not a lawyer and have not stayed at a Holiday Inn Express lately) that he currently is only charged with 2nd degree murder. In order to try him on manslaughter (voluntary/involuntary), he needs to be charged with that and another trial would need to take place. I've read on the internet that in FL the jury has the option for manslaughter if they don't feel it meets 2nd degree murder. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Koko78 Posted June 28, 2013 Share Posted June 28, 2013 I've read on the internet that in FL the jury has the option for manslaughter if they don't feel it meets 2nd degree murder. One side or the other can ask, at least in NY, for the jury to consider a lesser included offense. A lesser included offense of murder would likely be manslaughter. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gary M Posted June 28, 2013 Share Posted June 28, 2013 conversation with dispatch and colaboration from Travons friend proves Zimmerman continued to be the aggressor chasing a man who had commited no crime. which is why Zimmerman will be convicted of manslaughter in my opinion. And this is why he won't be convicted, IMO. http://legalinsurrection.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/06/zimmerman_scene_photo1.jpg https://twitter.com/LawSelfDefense/status/350341134356201472/photo/1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oxrock Posted June 28, 2013 Share Posted June 28, 2013 Where's the OP? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
unbillievable Posted June 28, 2013 Share Posted June 28, 2013 And this is why he won't be convicted, IMO. http://legalinsurrec...cene_photo1.jpg https://twitter.com/...6201472/photo/1 This is why he will... http://cdn.glockforum.com/forum/attachments/f15/14000d1342746496-george-zimmerman-case-baby-trayvon-predator-zimmerman.jpg Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gary M Posted June 28, 2013 Share Posted June 28, 2013 This is why he will... http://cdn.glockforu...r-zimmerman.jpg I don't think that was admitted as evidence in court. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Donald Duck Posted June 28, 2013 Share Posted June 28, 2013 OJ Simpson was aquitted of murder. Does that mean he didn't kill Nicole Brown Simpson, or does that mean that it's likely that justice was not done at trial? Does it mean that those who believe that OJ Simpson did not kill Nicole Brown Simpson are correct? The gloves clearly didn't fit, (OJ's daughter did it) . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
unbillievable Posted June 28, 2013 Share Posted June 28, 2013 I don't think that was admitted as evidence in court. I have doubts that the jury will keep their discussions only to evidence that they saw in court. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TakeYouToTasker Posted June 28, 2013 Share Posted June 28, 2013 The gloves clearly didn't fit, (OJ's daughter did it) Do you believe that court verdicts change the actual events of history? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Donald Duck Posted June 28, 2013 Share Posted June 28, 2013 Do you believe that court verdicts change the actual events of history? I believe court verdicts rendored in the past help structure how our judicial system functions, so in a sense, yes Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts