The Final Arguments and Verdict thread-The Last

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

What you REALLY deserve is to be personally and professionally crucified for that remark the way you and your fellow libs crucify others. What is it about you that makes you feel you are entitled to the right to talk like that and just say "never mind I take it back" and move on?

[GandD 5,966]

Good point. Not sure what the female equivalent of that is.

Stacked

[Ban Hammer 13,552]

one post with a personal insult removed.

[himher 634]

i love the sound of a whiny b----.

whiny b----.

Elaborate. What's that supposed to mean? I'm hearing <bwack> <bwack> so be a real man and say what you mean.

Edited July 13, 2013 by himher

[Jacque67 7,328]

?

[himher 634]

Stacked

LOL earns a vote

[Peikko 1,575]

You're losing me on the last part. I don't see it as so clear who was trying to get away. I understand your argument for who is the aggresser, though again, not so clear really, but as for who was trying to get away..not so much.

To me, it hinges on that 911 call, because when you hear the screaming, it certainly sounds like whoever is screaming is actually in fear for their life, and frankly, I cannot reconcile the scenario in which Treyvon Martin is the guy screaming.

This is the part of the prosecutions closing argument that doesn't work for me. I believe at one point he held up the gun and then a bottle of red bull or something and said "which of these two would make someone cry in fear"? But that is why I think it was Zimmerman screaming. The screaming went on for quite some time. I can't believe that its TM screaming for all that time because a gun is pointed at his chest and #1, Zimmerman lets it go on with the whole neighborhood listening, and #2 from what I can hear he never says "don't shoot". Remember also that John Good testifies that he saw the scuffle and one of the two said something to him, and Zimmerman also said he asked for help from one of the witnesses. We gotta assume this is when Good hears the screaming, and even if we assume he doesn't really know who is screaming or who is on top, we know one other thing-- Zimmerman doesn't know what he sees either. So, here you are now with knowledge that someone can see the two of you fighting, and if you are on top you gotta believe there is at least a good chance the witness can see that, and you are going to shoot someone laying on the ground while you have them pinned? That makes no sense. Therefore, I believe it was indeed Zimmerman screaming for help, and like I said, the person screaming for help sure sounds like he is in fear for his life, so that is reasonable doubt.

It may well be true that Zimmerman ended up fearing for his life and that's why he shot and killed Martin, but that doesn't cut and dry the case for self defense unless you simply believe no matter what your part in provoking an altercation, if you end up getting scared you might lose you have the right to kill your opponent.

By the way, is it really true that Zimmerman claimed he 'forgot' he had a gun until the point he was so scared he might die in a fist fight? Can the gun carriers explain that one to me, because that doesn't make much sense to me. How do you forget you have a gun? Is that what responsible gun owners do, forget they are carrying?

What it boils down to is whether you believe Zimmerman had the right to put himself into a stupid situation and shoot his way out of it when it didn't go the way he thought it would. Personally, I think he is guilty of manslaughter, I don't for one minute believe he set out to kill someone that night but he did kill someone because he was reckless in his behaviour. That's manslaughter every time.

[Penny Lane 8,159]

I have no idea which of the way too many GZ threads to post this in...

Looks like the jury has questions about manslaughter.

Edited July 13, 2013 by Penny Lane

[RGinWA 816]

I have no idea which of the way too many GZ threads to post this in...

Looks like the jury has questions about manslaughter.

It's Manslaughter. They spent an entire day to rule out Murder 2. The ill will or hatred was probably the sticking point on Murder 2.

If they believed self defense they'd throw Manslaughter out also and wouldn't need a definition.

He's toast...they just want clarification.

[Penny Lane 8,159]

I don't think that's necessarily the case. We'll see, I guess.

[Bugs 455]

No, the only thing that means is that they probably will not convict on murder charges. A jury needs to know the specifics on manslaughter before they can decide if they want to convict on manslaughter. They wouldn't decide, then ask what it is.

[Penny Lane 8,159]

I'm off to a balloon rally and fireworks show ... so hopefully they don't come up with a verdict tonight. Don't wanna miss the drama.

[RGinWA 816]

In order to convict of manslaughter by act, it is not necessary for the State to prove that George Zimmerman had an intent to cause death, only an intent to commit an act that was not merely negligent, justified, or excusable and which caused death.

If you find George Zimmerman committed Manslaughter, and you also find beyond a reasonable doubt that during the commission of the Manslaughter, George Zimmerman carried, displayed, used, threatened to use, or attempted to use a firearm, you should check the appropriate box on the verdict form which I will discuss with you later in these instructions.

[Darnell 8,479]

justified and excusable. Yay Team !

[Karee 4,191]

I don't think that's necessarily the case. We'll see, I guess.

You're no fun. You're supposed to act like you know everything, and you're a legal expert. Your P&R posting privileges may be revoked.