Pensacola Discussion Forum
Would you like to react to this message? Create an account in a few clicks or log in to continue.

This is a forum based out of Pensacola Florida.


You are not connected. Please login or register

Pensacola Discussion Forum » General Discussion » Juror B29 - Zimmerman Got Away with Murder

Juror B29 - Zimmerman Got Away with Murder

+8
Floridatexan
Nekochan
nadalfan
Hospital Bob
Joanimaroni
2seaoat
Slicef18
Sal
12 posters

Go to page : Previous  1 ... 6, 7, 8 ... 10 ... 14  Next

Go down  Message [Page 7 of 14]

Nekochan

Nekochan

Bob wrote:
2seaoat wrote:Exoneration occurs when a person who has been convicted of a crime is later proved to have been innocent of that crime.

In keeping with the high level of conceptualization, I too borrowed the definition of exoneration from wiki.........do you find something interesting about the use of this word in this context.........when a person has been convicted of a crime .......but Seaoat you have been wasting our time talking about these simple legal concepts, and now Bob has gone done it........he has linked to concepts......by golly Mr. Seaoat, I thought Mr. Zimmerman was found NG, but we just learned that an affirmative defense is like an exoneration, so does that mean that the state has otherwise proven their case.......I dunno folks.......maybe we can get another Wiki to help us along the way, but we are making progress on understanding affirmative defenses, how burdens shift, and why the law requires instructions in regard to the same.........For Christs Sake....have I confused, ...........or are there any light bulbs going off?

Oh for god's sake.  Zimmerman WAS NOT found to be guilty of manslaughter but was then exonerated of that.  That is just utter hokum.

Zimmerman was found not guilty of committing a crime.  Period.  There was no establishment of manslaughter at any point in this trial.  Only an establishment of homicide ("the killing of a human being") which was deemed to be justifiable.  

Now to the "affirmative defense".  Yes it was up to the defendant and his defense attorneys to do precisely this...

"In an affirmative defense, the defendant affirms that the condition is occurring or has occurred but offers a defense that bars, or prevents, the prosecution's claim"

Which they did.  And once they successfully affirmed that defense to the satisfaction of the jury,  the jury decided that there WAS NO CRIME committed.
The jury did not say "Zimmerman committed manslaughter but we're exonerating him".  Because there was no manslaughter.  Only justifiable homicide.



cheers cheers cheers 

2seaoat



Oh for god's sake. Zimmerman WAS NOT found to be guilty of manslaughter but was then exonerated of that. That is just utter hokum.

Yep, utter hokum, and yes he was found NG. How you get to a NG verdict is given in the instructions if you wish to follow the law and those concepts which make the law are an entire other matter. So let me ask you these three questions:

1 Is there anybody in America who does not think that Martin is dead, and that Zimmerman's act or acts caused that death?

2 Is there anybody in America that does not understand that those are the two elements of Manslaughter and the same was proved beyond a reasonable doubt.

3. Is there anybody in America that does not understand that if the jury believes the defendant presented evidence of a viable affirmative defense, that the killing can be justified, and therefore exonerated, or excused?

Pretty simple stuff when I posted to correct Neko who said Manslaughter cannot be justified. However, finally some concepts were posted and connected.....not sure about the comprehension, but little steps. I do not expect an answer on these three questions.....still waiting for the easy question.

Hospital Bob

Hospital Bob

2seaoat wrote: So let me ask you these three questions:

1   Is there anybody in America who does not think that Martin is dead, and that Zimmerman's act or acts caused that death?

No

2   Is there anybody in America that does not understand that those are the two elements of Manslaughter and the same was proved beyond a reasonable doubt.

Yes there are countless numbers of people in this country,  including judges,  lawyers and lawmakers,  who do not believe "manslaughter was proved beyond a reasonable doubt".  Because we know that there is no manslaughter when a homicide is deemed justifiable.  


3.  Is there anybody in America that does not understand that if the jury believes the defendant presented evidence of a viable affirmative defense, that the killing can be justified, and therefore exonerated, or excused?

In your 2nd paragraph you refer to "manslaughter".  In this one you refer to "killing".

That is the key to your whole take on this and what is so wrong about it. You are making "manslaughter" be synonymous with "killing".  Which of course is just plain flat wrong.


2seaoat



Yes there are countless numbers of people in this country, including judges, lawyers and lawmakers, who do not believe "manslaughter was proved beyond a reasonable doubt". Because we know that there is no manslaughter when a homicide is deemed justifiable.


Wrong answer Bob. There is a NG verdict if the jury follows the law and the jury instruction that the affirmative defense was proven by the Defendant. The Manslaughter remains the same, and no I am not interchanging killing with the elements of manslaughter. One is just one element of the crime, while the other has two elements. Both elements were proven beyond a reasonable doubt, and jury followed the jury instruction and found that the self defense affirmative defense was valid and entered NG......there is an order......killing is not the same as manslaughter, and the ultimate NG does not render the elements not proven.....only justifiable, excused, or exonerated.

Sal

Sal

All standards for a manslaughter charge were met. 

check

Prosecution could not prove with a preponderance of evidence that the killing was not in self defense. 

check

Court rules justifiable homicide. 

check 

Not guilty. 

check

STFU already

check?

 

Nekochan

Nekochan

2seaoat wrote:Oh for god's sake. Zimmerman WAS NOT found to be guilty of manslaughter but was then exonerated of that. That is just utter hokum.

Yep, utter hokum, and yes he was found NG.   How you get to a NG verdict is given in the instructions if you wish to follow the law and those concepts which make the law are an entire other matter.  So let me ask you these three questions:

1   Is there anybody in America who does not think that Martin is dead, and that Zimmerman's act or acts caused that death?

2   Is there anybody in America that does not understand that those are the two elements of Manslaughter and the same was proved beyond a reasonable doubt.

3.  Is there anybody in America that does not understand that if the jury believes the defendant presented evidence of a viable affirmative defense, that the killing can be justified, and therefore exonerated, or excused?

Pretty simple stuff when I posted to correct Neko who said Manslaughter cannot be justified.   However, finally some concepts were posted and connected.....not sure about the comprehension, but little steps.   I do not expect an answer on these three questions.....still waiting for the easy question.

Yes, you have posted plenty but you still have not shown anywhere in the Zimmerman case or elsewhere in Florida law where a court or a judge or jury instructions say that "manslaughter is justified" or mentions "justifiable manslaughter".

Joanimaroni

Joanimaroni

Sal wrote:All standards for a manslaughter charge were met. 

check

Prosecution could not prove with a preponderance of evidence that the killing was not in self defense. 

check

Court rules justifiable homicide. 

check 

Not guilty. 

check

STFU already

check?

 

Double check.

Did you get your snapper?

Sal

Sal

Joanimaroni wrote:
Sal wrote:All standards for a manslaughter charge were met. 

check

Prosecution could not prove with a preponderance of evidence that the killing was not in self defense. 

check

Court rules justifiable homicide. 

check 

Not guilty. 

check

STFU already

check?

 

Double check.

Did you get your snapper?

 Nah.


But, I did get a half-slab from Heavenly Hog with sides of collards and fried okra. 


I ain't proud, but, boy it was goooooood.


lol

Joanimaroni

Joanimaroni

Sal wrote:
Joanimaroni wrote:
Sal wrote:All standards for a manslaughter charge were met. 

check

Prosecution could not prove with a preponderance of evidence that the killing was not in self defense. 

check

Court rules justifiable homicide. 

check 

Not guilty. 

check

STFU already

check?

 

Double check.

Did you get your snapper?

 Nah.


But, I did get a half-slab from Heavenly Hog with sides of collards and fried okra. 


I ain't proud, but, boy it was goooooood.


lol

I hope you got cornbread with the collards.


Sal

Sal

Joanimaroni wrote:
Sal wrote:
Joanimaroni wrote:
Sal wrote:All standards for a manslaughter charge were met. 

check

Prosecution could not prove with a preponderance of evidence that the killing was not in self defense. 

check

Court rules justifiable homicide. 

check 

Not guilty. 

check

STFU already

check?

 

Double check.

Did you get your snapper?

 Nah.


But, I did get a half-slab from Heavenly Hog with sides of collards and fried okra. 


I ain't proud, but, boy it was goooooood.


lol

I hope you got cornbread with the collards.


Texas toast. 


I felt cheated ...


... until I tasted those collards ...


lol

2seaoat



Yes, you have posted plenty but you still have not shown anywhere in the Zimmerman case or elsewhere in Florida law where a court or a judge or jury instructions say that "manslaughter is justified" or mentions "justifiable manslaughter".


I have shown, I have failed in allowing some to comprehend.....again, I can only lead a horse to water.....I cannot make him drink, and when somebody simply does not understand a concept after four attempts.....but if you are comfortable crossing concepts without comprehension which your last post clearly establishes, I am happy for your ignorance, but if you understood the role of affirmative defenses in general and in the Zimmerman case my evening has not been wasted on utter ignorance.

Please note that Sal not only understands, but he put things in the right order.......and it only took him one post, but then again he understands the concepts.

Nekochan

Nekochan

The very beginning of the Zimmerman jury instructions:

INTRODUCTION TO HOMICIDE
In this case, George Zimmerman is accused of Second Degree Murder.
A killing that is excusable or was committed by the use of justifiable deadly force is
lawful.
If you find Trayvon Martin was killed by George Zimmerman, you will then consider the
circumstances surrounding the killing in deciding if the killing was Murder in the Second
Degree or was Manslaughter, or whether the killing was excusable or resulted from justifiable
use of deadly force.
JUSTIFIABLE HOMICIDE
The killing of a human being is justifiable and lawful if necessarily done while resisting
an attempt to murder or commit a felony upon George Zimmerman, or to commit a felony in
any dwelling house in which George Zimmerman was at the time of the attempted killing

**************************************************

Nowhere in the initial instructions or in later instructions does the court say that Zimmerman is guilty of manslaughter.  The initial instructions do not say that Zimmerman can be guilty of manslaughter or 2nd degree murder and also that his killing Martin can be excusable due to his justifiable use of deadly force.   FIRST, the jury is instructed to decide if Zimmerman killed Trayvon. THEN if the jury finds that ZImmernan killed Trayvon, they are instructed to decide IF it was 2nd degree murder OR manslaughter OR if the killing was excusable due to the justifiable use of deadly force.

Sal

Sal

2seaoat wrote:

Please note that Sal not only understands, but he put things in the right order.......and it only took him one post, but then again he understands the concepts.

 It ain't that complicated. 


Spicy, bacony, collards ...


... that can be complicated. 


But, gawd damn ....


.... when it comes together ..

Nekochan

Nekochan

2seaoat wrote:Yes, you have posted plenty but you still have not shown anywhere in the Zimmerman case or elsewhere in Florida law where a court or a judge or jury instructions say that "manslaughter is justified" or mentions "justifiable manslaughter".


I have shown, I have failed in allowing some to comprehend.....again, I can only lead a horse to water.....I cannot make him drink, and when somebody simply does not understand a concept after four attempts.....but if you are comfortable crossing concepts without comprehension which your last post clearly establishes, I am happy for your ignorance, but if you understood the role of affirmative defenses in general and in the Zimmerman case my evening has not been wasted on utter ignorance.

Please note that Sal not only understands, but he put things in the right order.......and it only took him one post, but then again he understands the concepts.

No, you have not shown anywhere or anyplace where "justifiable manslaughter" is mentioned...except in your own posts.

An affirmative defense ---Zimmerman did not deny to the court that he killed Martin; he claimed self defense in the killing. That's it. This does not in any way mean that the court proved that Zimmerman was guilty of unlawful killing or of manslaughter.

Hospital Bob

Hospital Bob

Joanimaroni wrote:
Sal wrote:All standards for a manslaughter charge were met. 

check



 


Absolutely incorrect.  And that's what keeps confusing seaoat as well.

The jury was given these instructions...

A killing that is excusable or was committed by the use of justifiable deadly force is lawful.If you find Trayvon Martin was killed by George Zimmerman, you will then consider the circumstances surrounding the killing in deciding if the killing was Murder in the Second Degree or was Manslaughter, or whether the killing was excusable or resulted from justifiable use of deadly force

That is making a clear distinction between "manslaughter" and "justifiable killing (homicide)" and instructing the jury to find one or the other,  not a combination of both.  
If the jury determines it to be a justifiable killing (or least determines there is a reasonable possibility of that which is all that is required),  the jury is also ruling out that a "manslaughter" occurred.  Because the two terms are distinct terms in the law.  There is no such thing as a finding of "justifiable manslaughter". Only that there is manslaughter or there is not manslaughter (i.e. guilty of manslaughter or not guilty of manslaughter".
The verdict was that no "standards of manslaughter" were proved simply because there was no manslaughter.  There was instead a justifiable killing/homicide which was an alternative to a manslaughter occuring.
Yes,  the state ATTEMPTED to establish/prove "standards for manslaughter".  But that's all.  In the final analysis the state DID NOT establish/prove that and there was no manslaughter in the eyes of the law.



Last edited by Bob on 7/28/2013, 10:38 pm; edited 1 time in total

2seaoat



It ain't that complicated.



You would think......but the concept of the earth not being flat is not considered that complicated......but trying to explain concepts to people is not always an easy task. You got it exactly right on the first post.......I now have the choice of watching people chase their tails explaining the earth is flat.

Hospital Bob

Hospital Bob

Seaoat,  so far your argument has two components to it.

1.  A totally false premise

2.  An attempt in every post to insult us in a very condescending manner.

Number 2 does not cancel number 1.

lol



Last edited by Bob on 7/28/2013, 10:41 pm; edited 1 time in total

2seaoat



Nowhere in the initial instructions or in later instructions does the court say that Zimmerman is guilty of manslaughter.

Did you really expect to find in the instruction from the court that Zimmerman is guilty of manslaughter(it probably would be on a yellow post em note)...........how stupid is this conversation going to get before somebody reads Sal's simple light bulb which illuminates the dimmest parts of the forum.

Hospital Bob

Hospital Bob

Please don't speak in riddles because that does not facillitate communication.
Be specific and tell us what "Sal's light bulb" is so we'll know what you're referring to.  Even if we are a bunch of retards I don't think we can be expected to read minds. lol

Guest


Guest

Nekochan wrote:The very beginning of the Zimmerman jury instructions:

INTRODUCTION TO HOMICIDE
In this case, George Zimmerman is accused of Second Degree Murder.
A killing that is excusable or was committed by the use of justifiable deadly force is
lawful.
If you find Trayvon Martin was killed by George Zimmerman, you will then consider the
circumstances surrounding the killing in deciding if the killing was Murder in the Second
Degree or was Manslaughter, or whether the killing was excusable or resulted from justifiable
use of deadly force.
JUSTIFIABLE HOMICIDE
The killing of a human being is justifiable and lawful if necessarily done while resisting
an attempt to murder or commit a felony upon George Zimmerman, or to commit a felony in
any dwelling house in which George Zimmerman was at the time of the attempted killing

**************************************************

Nowhere in the initial instructions or in later instructions does the court say that Zimmerman is guilty of manslaughter.  The initial instructions do not say that Zimmerman can be guilty of manslaughter or 2nd degree murder and also that his killing Martin can be excusable due to his justifiable use of deadly force.   FIRST, the jury is instructed to decide if Zimmerman killed Trayvon. THEN if the jury finds that ZImmernan killed Trayvon, they are instructed to decide IF it was 2nd degree murder OR manslaughter OR if the killing was excusable due to the justifiable use of deadly force.

Where Seaoat is messing up is he's saying the state charged manslaughter which has two elements to it.. a person is dead and George killed him; which is true. What he is saying wrong is he is guilty of manslaughter because the judge did not acquit. He is wrong saying that because his self defense prevailed.

Hospital Bob

Hospital Bob

Oh I get it. This must be Sal's "light bulb".

Sal wrote:All standards for a manslaughter charge were met. 


Well Sal's light bulb surely aint putting out much if any light because I already corrected that. Maybe Sal is using a flashlight and the batteries have died on him. lol

2seaoat



Seaoat, so far your argument has two components to it.

1. A totally false premise

2. An attempt in every post to insult us in a very condescending manner.


1. No Bob the world is not flat, and yes the concepts matter and the sequence they are addressed matter, but I heard that your backyard might be flat.....

2. There is no reason to insult someone who believes the world is flat, and certainly one should not be condescending in manner, rather one should support the bumbled concepts and sequence as such folks can remain comfortable in their perception, or an alternative is that they will get very angry and try to prove the world is flat.....and in the process.....sometimes a light bulb goes off........but I find the madder I get Dreams she actually starts reading, and progresses, you an Neko are fun to get mad.........I can see the steam coming from your words.....but I think maybe.......just maybe......if somebody asks you why the earth is flat......you might be able to politely rebut the misconception.......see how this works.

Guest


Guest

Bob wrote:Seaoat,  so far your argument has two components to it.

1.  A totally false premise

2.  An attempt in every post to insult us in a very condescending manner.

Number 2 does not cancel number 1.  

lol

It's part of his superiority complex but he is incorrect in what he is stating that the judge determined manslaughter. The judge just merely said by refusing to acquit there was enough evidence for the jury to decide.

2seaoat



Well Sal's light bulb surely aint putting out much if any light because I already corrected that. Maybe Sal is using a flashlight and the batteries have died on him. lol

Now now.....Sal's light is bright and true.....your myopic condition coupled with legal dyslexia does present a problem on illumination........but his batteries have been dead concerning the Miami heat......so you may have a point..........nah he actually was right on Miami, and you and I are only wishing his battery is weak.

Hospital Bob

Hospital Bob

Dreamsglore wrote:

Where Seaoat is messing up is he's saying the state charged manslaughter which has two elements to it.. a person is dead and George killed him; which is true. What he is saying wrong is he is guilty of manslaughter because the judge did not acquit. He is wrong saying that because his self defense prevailed.

What seaoat is missing is that,  if the jury believes that a killing is justified,  then no manslaughter occurred.  
It's not BOTH manslaughter AND justified killing.  There is no such thing.
If a jury decides that a killing is justified,  then it's saying there is no manslaughter.  That's why the jury said "on the charge of manslaughter,  we find the defendant NOT GUILTY".  Same as the jury said "on the charge of 2nd degree murder,  we find the defendant NOT GUILTY".
The jury is saying that neither a manslaughter nor a 2nd degree murder occurred.  What occurred was something totally distinct from that which the law terms a justifiable homicide.  Not a "justifiable manslaughter".
If it's justifiable it aint manslaughter.



Last edited by Bob on 7/28/2013, 10:56 pm; edited 1 time in total

Sponsored content



Back to top  Message [Page 7 of 14]

Go to page : Previous  1 ... 6, 7, 8 ... 10 ... 14  Next

Pensacola Discussion Forum » General Discussion » Juror B29 - Zimmerman Got Away with Murder

Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum