Travon Martin Trial

It's argument. But do you agree that a reasonable doubt is raised? That's all it takes for him to walk.

 

I've heard that generally a quick verdict is bad for the defendant.

Will say feel this portion of the trial has been rushed.

 

Well, Zimmerman walks, not a fan of this process or the rushed outcome.

They deliberated for how long? After all of the evidence offered imo they should have thought about it more.

 

Ho Lee Fuk. Here it comes.

 

Two days. On this record, that's more than long enough.

They weren't even going to charge him. They were strong-armed politically into it. Now an innocent man's life is ruined, unless the book sells.

 

Somewhere, at some level, I guess. It's Saturday night at 10 PM. Judge Nelson should have impounded the verdict until tomorrow at 9 AM.

Off to Nancy Grace.

 

Eh, Saturday night, they've been away from their families, this after the 13 hr day in court the other day, just feel it's been rushed.

I thought he'd walk, don't misunderstand that portion, this was not what I'd call a "weighty" debate in the jury room

 

A black guy just hit me over the head with a beer bottle.

Sent from my SPH-L710 using Tapatalk 2

 

Could a lawyer please explain to me, how anyone can prove motive beyond a reasonable doubt? There was no doubt of any kind if GZ shot and killed TM, he did, so somehow motive has to be shown beyond a reasonable doubt.

 

How was it "rushed"?? How long did the Anthony and Simpsons juries deliberate?

 

At 10 a.m. on October 3, 1995, the jury returned a verdict of not guilty. The only testimony reviewed was that of limo driver Alan Park who stated that he did not see Simpson's Bronco outside of the Rockingham estate after the murders occurred. It had arrived at the verdict by 3 p.m. the previous day, after only four hours of deliberation, but Judge Ito postponed the announcement.[SUP][32]

For example....

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/O._J._Simpson_murder_case
[/SUP]

 

The DA then has to provide the facts that he did not act reasonably, or he acted recklessly and in a manner likely to end up in the outcome.

 

You cannot do that to the degree of "beyond reasonable doubt". Chasing TM was reckless and it is absolutely likely that chasing someone ends in a confrontation.

 

How can you possibly prove anything without a reasonable doubt in a case of motive? All the defendant has to say is I didnt mean to do that

 

Not so, as the physical evidence, witness testimony, can impeach that, and "did not mean to do it" is not a defense for anything but malice aforethought.

Put it this way, "if" the marks on Zimmerman were not there, "if" the eyewitness had not seen Martin on top of him, what would the verdict likely have been?

 

Motive isn't generally an actual element in the crime. It's just that people tend to want a reason. Intent isn't the same thing as motive and neither is gross negligence. IMO the keys here were intent for 2nd and grossly negligent for manslaughter. The prosecution had to prove that either GZ was obviously intending to kill TM or that he was grossly negligent in pursuing him. My guess is that they felt the audio recording didn't sound like a guy intending to kill someone and that it was not grossly negligent for a neighborhood watch guy to look for a suspected burglar while carrying a gun and talking to the police.

 

Which means its now legal to kill anyone you wish, as long as you get them to hit you.

 

I also think that if he had sounded like a guy that was out for blood that the jury could have concluded he had the requisite intent.

 

I guess I don't see how its not grossly negligent to be in a NWP and chase someone while armed, when its 2 of the biggest no-nos there is for a NWP.

 

No, a mere striking in the face is not enough, one has to be in reasonable fear for their lives.

IE, when ones head is bouncing off of the pavement vs being slapped.

 

Told ya.

Sent from my EVO using Tapatalk 2

 

No, it just has to leave ugly marks. A couple of minor scratches to the head is obviously enough.

 

I don't think anyone here thought he'd be found guilty of the charges they used.

 

Exactly, it is usually not one thing that leads to a conviction, it is brick by brick, a case is built against a defendant.

"If" for example, he had used a racial epithet instead of Martin doing so, "if" there were no gouges on the back of his head "if" there was not a broken nose etc..

 

And they got there..how?

And the broken nose and eyewitness testimony that Martin was on top of him, and testimony that Zimmerman was screaming for help.

 

They got there because GZ chased TM. He stays in his vehicle, no one's dead or on trial. That was the first mistake that caused the events to unfold as they did.

 

Martin doesnt assault Zimmerman there is no trial......

 

Clearly, reading isn't your forte.

The FIRST mistake that night was made by GZ. If GZ doesn't chase TM, TM doesn't need to protect himself.

 

The true crime is the theft of the taxpayer's money.

Sent from my EVO using Tapatalk 2

 

They got there b/c Treyvon Martin put them there.

 

Martin engaged Zimmerman physically, he could have easily walked inside his door, thrown the lock, enjoyed his skittles and tea, that was his choice FinD.

 

Wasn't he just doing his job? I mean, he probably shouldn't have but he was suspicious. If Martin doesn't beat the **** out of him and just cooperates, he's alive.

 

TM put them there because GZ chased him.