Man follows black teen who seems "suspicious" and kills him.

Originally posted by jedi90
the crime he committed is murder.

Watch the acquittal video I posted. To prove murder, the prosecution has to show that there was intentional malice or ill will toward Martin, and the best evidence the prosecution has brought up is that Zimmerman called him a f***ing punk or a**hole during a phone call when Martin was nowhere close.

Given past precedence, as outlined in the video, that doesn't come close to meeting the threshold. I don't think you appreciate how broad the protection afforded to defendants by self-defense laws is in Florida.

Originally posted by Oliver North
Watch the acquittal video I posted. To prove murder, the prosecution has to show that there was intentional malice or ill will toward Martin, and the best evidence the prosecution has brought up is that Zimmerman called him a f***ing punk or a**hole during a phone call when Martin was nowhere close.

Given past precedence, as outlined in the video, that doesn't come close to meeting the threshold. I don't think you appreciate how broad the protection afforded to defendants by self-defense laws is in Florida.

it meets the threshold regardless of how minimal you believe.

martin personified the "f***ing punks" "that always get away" in zimmerman's eyes.

i'm well aware of how broad self defense laws in florida are. why is that folks don't seem to think these laws applied to mr. martin as well?

Originally posted by jedi90
it meets the threshold regardless of how minimal you believe.

The law, and Judges and juries, disagree.

Regardless of what you believe.

Originally posted by Tzeentch._
People aren't ignoring it, people are just aware that it's an irrelevant fact.

Zimmerman is an *******? Okay, cool. That doesn't make him a criminal, though.

How is that irrelevant Madam?

That "fact" is what caused the problem.

Originally posted by Tzeentch._
The law, and Judges and juries, disagree.

Regardless of what you believe.

they do?

hmmm you do realize he is on own trial because the law and judges didnt' agree, right?

Originally posted by SMIFF-N-WESSON
How is that irrelevant Madam?

That "fact" is what caused the problem.

Originally posted by jedi90
they do?

hmmm you do realize he is on own trial because the law and judges didnt' agree, right?

Originally posted by jedi90
hmmm you do realize he is on own trial because the law and judges didnt' agree, right?

You do realize an indictment is not a conviction, right? You do realize that the indictment is why they are in a trial, right?

Originally posted by Tzeentch._
It's irrelevant because being a dick who doesn't mind their own business isn't illegal. You do realize that the defense team is kicking the prosecution's ass, and a conviction for murder is borderline impossible at this point, right?

walking in the rain isn't illegal either.

if you read my original post you would have saw that i acknowledged how well the defense is doing. this doesn't exonerate zimmerman. honestly i think the prosecution is presenting their case poorly.

i felt from the get go manslaughter was the more appropriate charge.

Originally posted by jedi90
it meets the threshold regardless of how minimal you believe.

So, before going further, you have watched or are aware of the cases cited by the defense in their motion for acquittal?

Originally posted by jedi90
why is that folks don't seem to think these laws applied to mr. martin as well?

Because Martin isn't the defendant? I don't think anyone is suggesting Martin be charged posthumously with assault.

Originally posted by jedi90
[B]walking in the rain isn't illegal either.

Originally posted by dadudemon
You do realize an indictment is not a conviction, right? You do realize that the indictment is why they are in a trial, right?

you're all back of the bus with this one.

feel free to quote anything i wrote about a conviction.

we were discussing whether or not the prosecution's case meets the threshold of the charge of 2nd murder. which a judge felt it does, hence it going to trial.

Originally posted by jedi90
you're all back of the bus with this one.

feel free to quote anything i wrote about a conviction.

we were discussing whether or not the prosecution's case meets the threshold of the charge of 2nd murder. which a judge felt it does, hence it going to trial.

Originally posted by jedi90
the evidence you seem to be overlooking is the fact that zimmerman's story wasn't adding up. the crime he committed is murder.

Your assertion that the crime he committed was murder, which implies, obviously, that you think he should be... convicted of murder.

Backpedal moar.

Originally posted by Tzeentch._
It's irrelevant because being a dick who doesn't mind their own business isn't illegal.

I have never called him a criminal nor said he did anything illegal.
I do question why he was carrying a gun to go grocery shopping.....that sounds like someone with serious issues.
not a crime to carry a firearm in Florida (if permitted) but do you need too? if so then you should learn to mind your business and don't bring attention to yourself that will warrant any trouble.

Originally posted by jedi90
you're all back of the bus with this one.

feel free to quote anything i wrote about a conviction.

we were discussing whether or not the prosecution's case meets the threshold of the charge of 2nd murder. which a judge felt it does, hence it going to trial.

Oh really?

Let's recap:

Originally posted by Oliver North
Watch the acquittal video I posted. To prove murder, the prosecution has to show that there was intentional malice or ill will toward Martin, and the best evidence the prosecution has brought up is that Zimmerman called him a f***ing punk or a**hole during a phone call when Martin was nowhere close.

Given past precedence, as outlined in the video, that doesn't come close to meeting the threshold. I don't think you appreciate how broad the protection afforded to defendants by self-defense laws is in Florida.

Originally posted by jedi90
it meets the threshold regardless of how minimal you believe.

Originally posted by Tzeentch._
The law, and Judges and juries, disagree.

Regardless of what you believe.

Originally posted by jedi90
they do?

hmmm you do realize he is on own trial because the law and judges didnt' agree, right?

Originally posted by dadudemon
You do realize an indictment is not a conviction, right? You do realize that the indictment is why they are in a trial, right?

Originally posted by jedi90
you're all back of the bus with this one.

feel free to quote anything i wrote about a conviction.

we were discussing whether or not the prosecution's case meets the threshold of the charge of 2nd murder. which a judge felt it does, hence it going to trial.

You clearly have no clue why the trial is occurring. You clearly have no idea how the indictment process works. Instead of doing that typical internet pride thing, respond with a "my bad" or "shit, you're right" and then clarify.

Originally posted by SMIFF-N-WESSON
[B]I have never called him a criminal nor said he did anything illegal.

The topic of the ongoing discussion in this thread is about whether or not he committed a crime.

Thus, the morality of Zimmerman's actions are irrelevant to the discussion. No one disagrees that Zimmerman should not have been doing what he did. What people do disagree about is whether what he did makes him a criminal or not.

Originally posted by Oliver North
So, before going further, you have watched or are aware of the cases cited by the defense in their motion for acquittal?

Because Martin isn't the defendant? I don't think anyone is suggesting Martin be charged posthumously with assault.

the defense have moved for an acquittal, yes. feel free to post the news when they actually get it.

i wasn't suggesting martin be charged either, i'm mostly speaking in regards to public opinion to solely believe the killer's version of events is silly. zimmerman was following someone on foot in the dark, he had an obligation to deescalate the situation since he knew he was carrying. honestly i dont' think zimmerman would have ever gotten out of his car if he didn't have a pistol.

Originally posted by Tzeentch._
The topic of the ongoing discussion in this thread is about whether or not he committed a crime.

Thus, the morality of Zimmerman's actions are irrelevant to the discussion.

The crime in question is either Murder 2 or manslaughter.

It is relevant because to see the problem you must search the root.

You should go back and read my "stand your ground law" I wrote that in conjunction to Zimmermans actions in case you didn't get that part.

Originally posted by jedi90
we were discussing whether or not the prosecution's case meets the threshold of the charge of 2nd murder. which a judge felt it does, hence it going to trial.

Technically, the judge felt there was sufficient evidence to allow the jury to decide, not that the threshold was met.

For an acquittal, the evidence has to be such that, even interpreted in the most favorable light to the prosecution, the "self-defense" argument can't be ruled out. Basically, if you look at all of the evidence from the view most slanted against Zimmerman, there can be no possibility that he acted in self-defense.

By not granting the acquittal, the only thing the judge said was that in the most extreme interpretation of the evidence, it is possible Zimmerman committed Murder 2.

In either case, the judge was not ruling on whether the standard for ill will or malice had been met, directly, only stating that it could be in the most extreme interpretation of the evidence, and therefore a jury must decide.

Originally posted by SMIFF-N-WESSON
I have never called him a criminal nor said he did anything illegal.
I do question why he was carrying a gun to go grocery shopping.....that sounds like someone with serious issues.
not a crime to carry a firearm in Florida (if permitted) but do you need too? if so then you should learn to mind your business and don't bring attention to yourself that will warrant any trouble.

relevant part highlighted

Originally posted by Tzeentch._
The topic of the ongoing discussion in this thread is about whether or not he committed a crime.

Thus, the morality of Zimmerman's actions are irrelevant to the discussion. No one disagrees that Zimmerman should not have been doing what he did. What people do disagree about is whether what he did makes him a criminal or not.

To answer the question: YES
He should face the death penalty for senseless murder and not sit in a cell on tax payers $$.