Posted:
#76
I have to agree with #75
No malice aforethought
No malice aforethought
0
Prosecutor denies interfering in Florida shooting case
Posted:
#80
Quote Originally Posted by bowlslit:
Thats why they have 1st degree murder, second degree murder etc.
Manslaughter is more of a reckless killing. Like a kid hot rodding around in his car and losing control.
Don't see how this case applies.
Would be some degree of voluntary manslaughter. No prior intent to kill & in the heat/passion of the fight.
0
Posted:
#81
Quote Originally Posted by djbrow:
Since you are a lawyer djbrow. Tell me if this fits Zimmerman's psyche Snapping and killing someone IS manslaughter because it lacks the requisite intent and premeditation.
Of course, given your vast experience/training in police work, investigations, firearms, psychology, criminal law and procedure, and ballistics, you already know this. 
1. Vigilantes will often try to be apart of a community watch
2. A history of violence
3. Vigilantes have a "wannabe" cop mindset as serial killers
4. Vigilantes stake out their target, stalk their victim, and engage is a whole lot of brooding and premeditation.
5. He rationalizes self-defense, social defense, and natural law
0
Posted:
#82
@#81
it's dj is a lawyer, why would you expect him to know this?
I am thinking this is more along the lines and expertise of a criminal profiler or FBI behavioral sciences unit.
I personally disagree with every one you posted except maybe number 4.
from what I know and have read of vigilantes, they usually have a specific target that they feel have done them wrong, but they feel that justice has not been done
it's dj is a lawyer, why would you expect him to know this?
I am thinking this is more along the lines and expertise of a criminal profiler or FBI behavioral sciences unit.
I personally disagree with every one you posted except maybe number 4.
from what I know and have read of vigilantes, they usually have a specific target that they feel have done them wrong, but they feel that justice has not been done
0
Posted:
#83
J_Galt is correct. And I have no idea what the psyche of Zimmerman is. Nor Martin. I think that is really for the armchair QBs who weren't there. Realistically, based on their respective actions, the only thing that matters is what they knew at the time.
I also don't consider the actions of Z to be that of a vigilante, unless he perceived that he was a prior victim of Martin specifically.
What may be relevant at a civil trial or in the unlikely event of a criminal trial, is whether Zimmerman was a hothead, because one could argue as to him overreacting. You can expect there would be evidentiary arguments to that effect and I cannot tell you whether his past actions would be admissible or not.
Nothing regarding Martin's past would be admissible to any extent unless it was known by Zimmerman.
0
Posted:
#85
Quote Originally Posted by J_Galt:
@83
I made the point the other day of the relevance of Zs history as an alleged temper problem.
I am relatively confident that there would be pretrial motions to suppress any prosecutorial attempts to admit this as evidence
@83
I made the point the other day of the relevance of Zs history as an alleged temper problem.
I am relatively confident that there would be pretrial motions to suppress any prosecutorial attempts to admit this as evidence
Well, you do waive much of this when you raise the issue of self-defense, which would require his testimony. Obviously, the defense would argue that the prosecution is trying to show he was acting in conformity therewith, but the prosecution would counter that it isn't used as susbtantive evidence as the case-in-chief but to rebut claims of self-defense.
My guess is in a criminal case, it comes in with a very limited instruction to the jury.
I would guess it would be come in completely in a civil proceeding.
0
Posted:
#86
MoneySRH,
Don't ask a lawyer ...
Ask dl36 ...he claims to be a psychotherapist,who observes and analyzes members thoughts & motives, in this forum,on a daily basis ..
Of cousre this might not transfer to analyzing Democrats like Zimmerman,due to the fact that Darryl ..has only shown the ability to evaluate righties.....
0
Posted:
#87
Quote Originally Posted by djbrow:
Well, you do waive much of this when you raise the issue of self-defense, which would require his testimony. Obviously, the defense would argue that the prosecution is trying to show he was acting in conformity therewith, but the prosecution would counter that it isn't used as susbtantive evidence as the case-in-chief but to rebut claims of self-defense.
My guess is in a criminal case, it comes in with a very limited instruction to the jury.
I would guess it would be come in completely in a civil proceeding.
This is why defense atty don't want to put the defendant on the stand. If he testifies then it's pretty easy to get this stuff in. After going through the episode the prosecutor just asks if he has a short temper. Z says no. Prosecutor says but isn't it true that you have punched so and so, etc etc. It's pretty easy to open the door once he testifies.
Would self defense *require* his testimony? I'm not sure that's true. It would seem to make sense for it, but I'm not sure it would be required.
0
Posted:
#88
Quote Originally Posted by djbrow:
The reason I asked you is I wanted to see if Martin's attorney can paint a picture of Zimmerman's mindset at the time of the killing. I always thought a man's behavior can be used against him. I had the impression that whichever lawyer tells the best story wins the case. J_Galt is correct. And I have no idea what the psyche of Zimmerman is. Nor Martin. I think that is really for the armchair QBs who weren't there. Realistically, based on their respective actions, the only thing that matters is what they knew at the time.
I also don't consider the actions of Z to be that of a vigilante, unless he perceived that he was a prior victim of Martin specifically.
What may be relevant at a civil trial or in the unlikely event of a criminal trial, is whether Zimmerman was a hothead, because one could argue as to him overreacting. You can expect there would be evidentiary arguments to that effect and I cannot tell you whether his past actions would be admissible or not.
Nothing regarding Martin's past would be admissible to any extent unless it was known by Zimmerman.
0
Posted:
#93
Quote Originally Posted by cashin:
Would be some degree of voluntary manslaughter. No prior intent to kill & in the heat/passion of the fight.
The case I used as an example is voluntary manslaughter. He voluntarily drove the car recklessly and caused the car to get out of control.
My take is that it is not any form of voluntary manslaughter.
He didn't have the intent to kill even though he had the justification to do so. His intent was to stop the suspects actions of pounding his head into the sidewalk. The fact that his method of stopping the suspects actions ended up killing him, since he had justification is irrelevant.
In my oppinion you either have murder 2 or nothing. These deadly fights happen all the time on 'Another 48 Hours'. And they never persue the manslaughter bs.
Thre is overwhelming evidence that Zimmerman had been punched in the nose and had his head pounding in the pavement. Likely, Georges statements that Trayvon was verbally threatening him while on top of him will be admitted as well.
There is no evidence to suggest that Zimmermans account was wrong, other than some wack audio specialist using a faint scream as a sample to test.
Either Zimmerman had his gun out from the beginning or he didn't. If he did, Trayvon would have told his girl to call the cops while he still had her on the phone.
Since Trayvon didn't know the cops were on the way already, he was the more likely person to break the law and start the physical confrontation.
Zimmerman knew the cops would be there any minute and would more than likely try to be on his best behavior.
Zimmerman had been through the same ordeal 45 times before without violence and without gunshots. Trayvons physical confrontation changed that.
13 year old boy said he heard the one on the bottom screaming and Zimmerman had marks on the back of his head suggesting he was on the bottom and his story in fact accurate.
Usually the pussies that hit women are very hesitant to get physical with an equal combatant. Maybe DL can verify that. On the 911 call he sounded petrified about confronting Trayvon.
Only an idiot at this point would still be talking about him being a vigilante. How was he to know that Trayvon would start throwing down on him?
0
Posted:
#95
Quote Originally Posted by bowlslit:
Usually the pussies that hit women are very hesitant to get physical with an equal combatant. Maybe DL can verify that. On the 911 call he sounded petrified about confronting Trayvon.
Bowlslit,
Darryl is not a shrink.....he runs a massgae parlor in Southern California specializing in acupuncture,yoga classes and deep rub massages...
He is claming,that he's a psychotherapist..break it down and what do you have ? psycho-the-rapist..
0
Posted:
#97
Quote Originally Posted by bowlslit:
The case I used as an example is voluntary manslaughter. He voluntarily drove the car recklessly and caused the car to get out of control.
My take is that it is not any form of voluntary manslaughter.
He didn't have the intent to kill even though he had the justification to do so. His intent was to stop the suspects actions of pounding his head into the sidewalk. The fact that his method of stopping the suspects actions ended up killing him, since he had justification is irrelevant.
In my oppinion you either have murder 2 or nothing. These deadly fights happen all the time on 'Another 48 Hours'. And they never persue the manslaughter bs.
Thre is overwhelming evidence that Zimmerman had been punched in the nose and had his head pounding in the pavement. Likely, Georges statements that Trayvon was verbally threatening him while on top of him will be admitted as well.
There is no evidence to suggest that Zimmermans account was wrong, other than some wack audio specialist using a faint scream as a sample to test.
Either Zimmerman had his gun out from the beginning or he didn't. If he did, Trayvon would have told his girl to call the cops while he still had her on the phone.
Since Trayvon didn't know the cops were on the way already, he was the more likely person to break the law and start the physical confrontation.
Zimmerman knew the cops would be there any minute and would more than likely try to be on his best behavior.
Zimmerman had been through the same ordeal 45 times before without violence and without gunshots. Trayvons physical confrontation changed that.
13 year old boy said he heard the one on the bottom screaming and Zimmerman had marks on the back of his head suggesting he was on the bottom and his story in fact accurate.
Usually the pussies that hit women are very hesitant to get physical with an equal combatant. Maybe DL can verify that. On the 911 call he sounded petrified about confronting Trayvon.
Only an idiot at this point would still be talking about him being a vigilante. How was he to know that Trayvon would start throwing down on him?
First of all, I've never thought this was a case about racism (don't know Z so I can't say if he's personally a racist or not) or that Z was a pure vigilante - overzealous watchman is a probably better way to put it. And I hate all the bs that Al, Jesse & their sort have stirred up along with some of the media but it is understandable & was to be expected.
Have just looked at it from what we know & has been reported and alot of Z's account just doesn't make sense.Especially if you believe the girfriend's account of their call (& we know the call occurred) along with considering why would Trayvon who's visiting his Dad, just go up to Z unprovoked & start attacking him & pounding his head against the concrete when he's just a few houses down from his father's & Z had turned away & was leaving?
And I'm not saying Martin was any kind of angel either, but that flat out defies logic. If it can be determined who the screams for help are coming from, that would be the most telling thing of all & right now, I'd say it was Martin. Based mostly on the voice experts opinion, but if & when it goes to court no telling how well that would stand up. Would be alot stronger if they can get a match with Trayvon's voice. Think they'll charge him & then it turns into a 3 ring legal & natl media circus -
I
0
Posted:
#98
Cashin,
You do know that one of the experts that is claiming voice recognition is Ed Primeau he doesn't believe in the other expert Tom Owens Biomettics Analysis..,
Ed simply listened to the recording .Then decided the noises for helps were Trayvon Martins,because of the tone of the voice.. he is saying the voice is a dead give away ..."That's a young man screaming"s ...
Zimmermans brother who was on TV had a soft spoken high pitched voice ( like Mikael or Jamaine Jackson ) and he said George's voice sounded like his ...Trayvon wasn't a little boy 6" plus hisvoice could have sounded like a grown man.. Primeau doesn't know what Trayvon voice sounded like ..
..and Tom Owens's biometric software he used to compare Zimmermans voice ...is one he invented and developed less than a month ago ..Easy Voice Biometrics and he selling it on a website for a $4,995 license fee....sounds like a conflict of interest..to promote his product...imo
0
Posted:
#100
Quote Originally Posted by be easy:
Whatever happened to, innocent until proven guilty?
Whatever happened to, innocent until proven guilty?
Don't you remember Rev.Joesph Lowery's speech at Obama's inauguration as first black U.S. president.. it set the tone ?
“We ask you to help us work for that day when black will not be asked to get in back, when brown can stick around, when yellow will be mellow, when the red man can get ahead, man; and when white will embrace what is right"
I guess some people feel he's guilty until proven innocent,because white ain't embracing what is right ..
0
Hot Forum Topics
