Trayvon Martin Case

So those saying manslaughter, you have no doubts whatsoever that Zimmerman initiated the physical confrontation and wasn't in fear for his life.

Not asking if that's what you think is true. I am simply asking if you believe it absolutely could not have happened any differently.

There is no doubt in my mind its manslaugher. Negligent killing. I also believe in Zim's mind stand your ground qualified his actions. Not being talked enough in the case, but that was Zim's justification. Zim thought he had the right to even use force to protect his neighborhood. People need to understand, he's not a normal, reasonable person. After he actually killed Trayvon, only then did he think, oh no I shouldnt have done this; up until that point he thought he had every right to do what he did. The law has to be the line in the sand, his negligence and direct actions lead to the death of a completely innocent kid. Remember Trayvon did nothing...this wasnt a case of a kid breaking in cars or houses or dealing drugs etc.

Joe, please come to your senses. You are making a mockery of our legal system.

Smith, et al., v. United States | LII / Legal Information Institute (http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/cert/11-8976)

Smith v. United States | The Oyez Project at IIT Chicago-Kent College of Law (http://www.oyez.org/cases/2010-2019/2012/2012_11_8976)

Game...set...match!LMAO. These two posts are too good not to respond to. For the post above, I was going to respond with, "Do you understand in what way 5th amendment rights apply in this case, saden?" But why try to provide some reasoning to your thinking myself? Saden, how does this case you cite applies to the Zimmerman case?

LOL...I may have to file a formal complain against you with the ABA. You certainly dont seem to know the law.

Here is something I googled and found posted on a Florida law firm's website that should eat away at your credibility.

Florida Criminal Law Defenses | Criminal Affirmative Defenses (http://www.husseinandwebber.com/florida-criminal-law-defenses.html)OMG. I saw this website earlier and figured it was so in favor of Zimmerman it would be dismissed as too biased. Saden, like the prosecution in this case, you keep giving victory to your opponent. In this example, you don't understand that not all affirmative defenses are alike.

From the website you brought up yourself:

Florida Law on Self-Defense : Use of Deadly and Non Deadly Force (http://www.husseinandwebber.com/florida-law-self-defense-use-of-force.html)

What Evidence is Required to Raise a Self-Defense Claim in Florida?

The defendant is entitled to a jury instruction on self-defense in Florida when there is any evidence to support the claim. This is a low standard and even a “scintilla” of evidence will be sufficient, even if the self-defense theory is extremely weak or improbable. Self-defense may even be inferred from the State’s evidence without the Defendant or a defense witness ever taking the stand.
(http://www.husseinandwebber.com/florida-law-self-defense-use-of-force.html)

Read further, I think the website you brought up pretty much addresses and then invalidates every argument you've made in this thread, saden. :)

There is no doubt in my mind its manslaugher. Negligent killing. I also believe in Zim's mind stand your ground qualified his actions. Not being talked enough in the case, but that was Zim's justification. Zim thought he had the right to even use force to protect his neighborhood. People need to understand, he's not a normal, reasonable person. After he actually killed Trayvon, only then did he think, oh no I shouldnt have done this; up until that point he thought he had every right to do what he did. The law has to be the line in the sand, his negligence and direct actions lead to the death of a completely innocent kid. Remember Trayvon did nothing...this wasnt a case of a kid breaking in cars or houses or dealing drugs etc.You have beyond a reasonable doubt that Zimmerman actually provoked violence against himself? If that's your opinion, it is what it is, but why are you so sure of that? SMH at the idea 84clark has expressed that getting out of your car and following someone is legally reason enough to be attacked.

The rest, good lord, where do you get the idea that what you said above is how Zimmerman justified shooting Martin? And what Zimmerman actually thought afterwards?

Zimmerman claimed his self-justification was that he called for help and nobody came, and that Martin had reached for Zimmerman's gun (not grabbed it, reached for it). This might or might not be true, but how did you come to be so sure otherwise?

You seem to ascribe all kind of bad thoughts to Zimmerman with little evidence, while saying you're positive the guy talking about "the creepy ass cracker" did nothing.

You have beyond a reasonable doubt that Zimmerman actually provoked violence against himself? If that's your opinion, it is what it is, but why are you so sure of that? SMH at the idea 84clark has expressed that getting out of your car and following someone is legally reason enough to be attacked.

The rest, good lord, where do you get the idea that what you said above is how Zimmerman justified shooting Martin? And what Zimmerman actually thought afterwards?

Zimmerman claimed his self-justification was that he called for help and nobody came, and that Martin had reached for Zimmerman's gun (not grabbed it, reached for it). This might or might not be true, but how did you come to be so sure otherwise?

The most important piece of evidence is the call. Alot people giving Zim too much credit. Yes from what I see and hear from Zim, Im sure of that.

So as long as I yell help, I can shoot someone? Thats justification? Ill remember that.

(snip).JoeR, could the prosecution's plan all along have been to overcharge, get a jury that might be predisposed to look for a compromise ("to make everybody happy"), to get a manslaughter charge?

There is no doubt in my mind its manslaugher. Negligent killing. I also believe in Zim's mind stand your ground qualified his actions. Not being talked enough in the case, but that was Zim's justification. Zim thought he had the right to even use force to protect his neighborhood. People need to understand, he's not a normal, reasonable person. After he actually killed Trayvon, only then did he think, oh no I shouldnt have done this; up until that point he thought he had every right to do what he did. The law has to be the line in the sand, his negligence and direct actions lead to the death of a completely innocent kid. Remember Trayvon did nothing...this wasnt a case of a kid breaking in cars or houses or dealing drugs etc.

To be clear, I understand that is what you think happened and why. I also agree that it is a reasonable explanation of what happened that night.

My question to you is - Is it the only reasonable explanation of what happened that night? For me, I just don't know with any degree of certainty who started the fight and I believe that, at the moment he fired the gun, Zimmerman really was reasonably in fear of his life. Are you saying that my belief is completely irrational and has no support from the evidence submitted?

The most important piece of evidence is the call. Alot people giving Zim too much credit. Yes from what I see and hear from Zim, Im sure of that.

So as long as I yell help, I can shoot someone? Thats justification? Ill remember that.Well, do you think Zimmerman would have still shot Martin if someone had come to help? That's one risk Zimmerman was taking in calling for help if he wanted to shoot Martin, right?

JoeR, could the prosecution's plan all along have been to overcharge, get a jury that might be predisposed to look for a compromise ("to make everybody happy"), to get a manslaughter charge?

Yes. They would not be the first and they won't be the last to do so. Of course, in doing so, they run the risk of promising more than they can prove and creating an expectation from the jury that they cannot match.

I did not watch the openings. The best indication that this is what they did would be how they approached the issue there. If they did a "soft sell" of the murder 2 "reckless acts" facts at that point while emphasizing the manslaughter "negligent act" facts, then that was likely the plan all along.

... Read further, I think the website you brought up pretty much addresses and then invalidates every argument you're made in this thread, saden. :)

Objective analysis, critical thinking and knowledge of the law have not been saden1's strong suits at any point in this thread.

Bias, demagoguery and ignorance, however ...

So as long as I yell help, I can shoot someone? Thats justification? Ill remember that.

I won't insult your intelligence by asserting all Zimmerman did was innocently follow a guy he thought to be was suspicious. Please don't insult mine by asserting that Zimm yelling for help is the only evidence in support of Zimm's claim of reasonably being in fear of his life.