I saw an article that said the jury could settle for a lesser charge such as manslaughter in this case.

 

Hence the overcharge as many say. Or, as Paul Harvey would say, "And now you know the rest of the story."

However, depraved mindset is simply him calling Martin, a law abiding citizen an a-hole and profiling him as a criminal. If he fits the description, it is not up to you to arrest him. Once again, he guessed wrong. That is why you allow police to police. He's also morally corrupt in starting the fight by leaving his vehicle and pursuing Martin when being told his services weren't needed. Remember, he did not call 9-1-1; he called police non-emergency; so this is a police department employee saying this to him. So he is disrespective of police suggestions. As far as the documents, consider the sources. They are defense attorneys.

Hence the overcharge as many say. Or, as Paul Harvey would say, "And now you know the rest of the story."

However, depraved mindset is simply him calling Martin, a law abiding citizen an a-hole and profiling him as a criminal. If he fits the description, it is not up to you to arrest him. Once again, he guessed wrong. That is why you allow police to police. He's also morally corrupt in starting the fight by leaving his vehicle and pursuing Martin when being told his services weren't needed. Remember, he did not call 9-1-1; he called police non-emergency; so this is a police department employee saying this to him. So he is disrespective of police suggestions. As far as the documents, consider the sources. They are defense attorneys.

 

I don't follow your "depraved" comment. Are you saying those things show depravity?

 

What do you need to see in order to determine GZ "started the fight?" We certainly do not know that yet.

 

I can certainly see discrediting sources if it's some whacky source. That's not the case here so for good debate purposes give us your thoughts as to why these attorneys (some former prosecutors) are incorrect.

85, I've also listed the actual wording for murder. Give us your thoughts as to how the facts that WE KNOW(not what we assume) meet those requirements.

 

If I've missed your thoughts on why self-defense laws AS WRITTEN do not apply I apologize but would love to hear your thoughts.

 

To me it's the key to this case.

Depends on your definition of "confront."

 

Let's say we all agree that Zimmerman approached Trayvon and asked him where he was going. Depending on the tone used (we don't know) that could be deemed to be a "confrontation." Is that enough though ?

I guess that's what I'm asking. Did GZ ever in fact approach TM? I haven't seen anything that shows GZ was able to find TM and "confront" him. I believe it is GZ's position that he looked for Martin, didn't find him, started back to the car when Martin confronted GZ. I could be missing something though.

I guess that's what I'm asking. Did GZ ever in fact approach TM? I haven't seen anything that shows GZ was able to find TM and "confront" him. I believe it is GZ's position that he looked for Martin, didn't find him, started back to the car when Martin confronted GZ. I could be missing something though.

 

The girl's testimony would seem to imply that GZ was following ie approaching Trayvon.

 

GZ's version is different.

The girl's testimony would seem to imply that GZ was following ie approaching Trayvon.

 

GZ's version is different.

So it could come down to whether the jury believes the girlfriends story. IMO, that isn't good for GZ because I'm guessing the jury will be looking for any reason to convict.

 

I do find it interesting that the jury will be able to convict on a lesser charge even if there isn't one as an option. Maybe LN can shed some light on this.

So it could come down to whether the jury believes the girlfriends story. IMO, that isn't good for GZ because I'm guessing the jury will be looking for any reason to convict.

 

I do find it interesting that the jury will be able to convict on a lesser charge even if there isn't one as an option. Maybe LN can shed some light on this.

 

I emailed a reporter whose story I read. She said they could even go down to assault and battery.

I emailed a reporter whose story I read. She said they could even go down to assault and battery.

Good info, thanks.

^I'm going to say, no chance in hell it gets even remotely close to being tossed out.

 

Why?

Why?

 

At the risk of speaking for UKMF I'd say he's saying no judge in the world wants to be the one to throw out such a high-profile case.

 

From reading a few stories it's not unheard of for Florida judges to drop cases based on the SYG or self-defense rule. However, to do so here the judge had better be ready to suffer the wrath of many - even if he felt he/she was right.

I emailed a reporter whose story I read. She said they could even go down to assault and battery.

 

Is that up to the jury or does that mean the prosecutor can add/amend the charges later?

At the risk of speaking for UKMF I'd say he's saying no judge in the world wants to be the one to throw out such a high-profile case.

 

From reading a few stories it's not unheard of for Florida judges to drop cases based on the SYG or self-defense rule. However, to do so here the judge had better be ready to suffer the wrath of many - even if he felt he/she was right.

 

My response would be: So a judge should let public opinion sway his legal determination of the law?

 

For the people who want him convicted so badly, do you really want this? Do you really want public opinion to determine whether a judge does his job by the law?

My response would be: So a judge should let public opinion sway his legal determination of the law?

 

It doesn't matter whether or not it should. Fact is, our legal system is every bit as political as actual politics these days. Therefore, there's no way it gets tossed out.

It doesn't matter whether or not it should. Fact is, our legal system is every bit as political as actual politics these days. Therefore, there's no way it gets tossed out.

 

Real talk

My response would be: So a judge should let public opinion sway his legal determination of the law?

 

For the people who want him convicted so badly, do you really want this? Do you really want public opinion to determine whether a judge does his job by the law?

 

Yes, because this is not the spirit of the law.