(01-10-2015 12:13 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(01-10-2015 11:44 AM)Fitbud Wrote:  He should have been guilty of something.

What?

What crime did he commit? What are the elements of that crime? What proof of each of them exists and was introduced at trial?

We get that you don't like what he did. What you need to realize is that doesn't make it a crime.

I think he could have gotten involuntary manslaughter at the least.

I think most people realized years ago that George Zimmerman is a nut.

(01-10-2015 12:13 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(01-10-2015 11:44 AM)Fitbud Wrote:  He should have been guilty of something.

What?

Walking while white hispanic White-Hispanic. Yeah, that's it...

He needs some help. IT's like he's crying out for it.

(01-10-2015 09:04 PM)supertiger Wrote:  I think most people realized years ago that George Zimmerman is a nut.

Nut?...maybe...Idiot?.....for sure.

(01-10-2015 11:44 AM)Fitbud Wrote:  He should have been guilty of something.

He's guilty of being stupid. That carries a lifelong sentence.

(01-10-2015 07:36 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(01-10-2015 12:13 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(01-10-2015 11:44 AM)Fitbud Wrote:  He should have been guilty of something.

What?

What crime did he commit? What are the elements of that crime? What proof of each of them exists and was introduced at trial?

We get that you don't like what he did. What you need to realize is that doesn't make it a crime.

I think he could have gotten involuntary manslaughter at the least.

How would you go about proving that?

1.He was walking around with a loaded weapon.
2. He was told not to follow suspect but he did anyway.
3. He confronted suspect.

That's just for starters.

Was he breaking some law with his weapon?

Was he legally obligated to obey some suggestion from some anonymous telephone personnel?

Again, some law against confronting people?

(01-11-2015 01:00 PM)Paul M Wrote:  Was he breaking some law with his weapon?

Was he legally obligated to obey some suggestion from some anonymous telephone personnel?

Again, some law against confronting people?

No but those contributed to a death. Therefore it is evidence against a possible manslaughter.

Not to mention that he also changed his story several times.

(01-11-2015 12:20 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  1.He was walking around with a loaded weapon.
2. He was told not to follow suspect but he did anyway.
3. He confronted suspect.

That's just for starters.

What proof do you have for point 3?

1 and 2 don't constitute a crime.

(01-11-2015 01:51 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  Not to mention that he also changed his story several times.

Did he change his testimony on the witness stand? Legally, that's all that matters.

(01-11-2015 01:49 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(01-11-2015 01:00 PM)Paul M Wrote:  Was he breaking some law with his weapon?
Was he legally obligated to obey some suggestion from some anonymous telephone personnel?
Again, some law against confronting people?

No but those contributed to a death. Therefore it is evidence against a possible manslaughter.

Not sufficient evidence to prove a crime.

(01-10-2015 01:10 PM)CoastGuardHawk06 Wrote:  

(01-10-2015 12:48 PM)firmbizzle Wrote:  

(01-10-2015 12:28 PM)Native Georgian Wrote:  The case "seemed" like manslaughter to me from the first time I heard about it. I will always believe that -- regardless of the law -- a jury probably would've convicted Z of that offense if the prosecution had sought that result from the beginning. But the over-charging spoiled the chance.

You are right. An immediately charge and the media wouldn't have picked up on it. There wouldn't be the pressure to charge him with 2nd degree murder. He should have been charged with Manslaughter and menacing by stalking.

They were "handcuffed" per say into the murder charges due to the public opinion and people like Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton. If the DA had only gone with manslaughter there would have been riots based on the opinion that he should have been charged with murder.

It was a no win situation for the DA.

Sometimes in life you have to ignore the noise.

(01-10-2015 04:19 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(01-10-2015 12:46 PM)firmbizzle Wrote:  

(01-10-2015 12:13 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(01-10-2015 11:44 AM)Fitbud Wrote:  He should have been guilty of something.

What?

What crime did he commit? What are the elements of that crime? What proof of each of them exists and was introduced at trial?

We get that you don't like what he did. What you need to realize is that doesn't make it a crime.

Menacing by stalking.

So Trayvon Martin is dead and you're going to file STALKING charges? Seriously?

Plus, how are you going to prove them? I was out of the country during the trial and got only highlights, but I didn't see anything that would support a stalking conviction.

Zimm admits to stalking on the 911 call. They tell him to stand back.

(01-11-2015 08:46 PM)firmbizzle Wrote:  Zimm admits to stalking on the 911 call. They tell him to stand back.

No.

(01-11-2015 09:03 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(01-11-2015 08:46 PM)firmbizzle Wrote:  Zimm admits to stalking on the 911 call. They tell him to stand back.

No.

Yes. Listen to the call. He obviously follows Martin.

Following... not the same as... stalking.

(01-11-2015 09:21 PM)firmbizzle Wrote:  

(01-11-2015 09:03 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(01-11-2015 08:46 PM)firmbizzle Wrote:  Zimm admits to stalking on the 911 call. They tell him to stand back.

No.

Yes. Listen to the call. He obviously follows Martin.

Stalking is not following.
And obviously nothing he said in the phone call describes what happened after, and what happened after is what matters.
And he was not told to stand back. Standing back was not mentioned. And there was no "they" (plural), there was one person (the 911 operator). And the 911 operator has no directive authority, simply advisory.

I think involuntary manslaughter was possible if the prosecutor could prove that the act of leaving the car was negligent and the final outcome was reasonably foreseeable. But I don't think he rabble rousers allowed the prosecutor to seek involuntary manslaughter.