It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Exclusive! First hand Witness: Trayvon Martin attacked Zimmerman Zimmerman Innocent Smoking Gun

page: 291
105
<< 288  289  290    292  293  294 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 26 2012 @ 07:53 PM
link   
reply to post by GogoVicMorrow
 


There are lesser included charges he can be convicted of even if a jury decides it not 2nd degree.....

I guess you also missed that piece of information in all you vast knowledge of this case.

He was charged with 2nd degree because the prosecutor believes she has enough evidence to prove that, if a jury thinks she doesn't have enough to prove that BUT she does have enough to prove, say, manslaughter or negligent homicide they can convict on that. She most likely has enough for 2nd degree, if she doesn't she has an abundance to prove manslaughter or negligent homicide.

Lesser included charges are not your friend George Zimmerman.




posted on Apr, 26 2012 @ 08:03 PM
link   
reply to post by popsmayhem
 


What if Zimmerman went to grab Trayvons arm to detain him as he went to run? --- Zimmerman aggressor
Trayvon then pulls his elbow away, and being taller than Zimmerman elbows him in the nose? --- Travvon defending himself
Zimerman pursues Trayvon, Trayvon and Zimmerman both lose their footing and stumble to the ground. -- Scrapes on Zimmermans head
They struggle on the ground and zimmerman goes for his gun, gets it, shoots Trayvon.


Trayvon did not have to be the initial aggressor to leave injuries on Zimmerman. all the Zimmerman supporters just assume it must have happened the way Zimmerman said cuz he had a scratch on his head and some blood on his nose. Yes, that is one way it could have happened, but as I just have shown you there are other ways it could have happened that point to Trayvon being the defending his self.......I know in your world it just is not possible in any way for this to be true, but it makes more logical sense. Zimmerman initially called police on Trayvon, Zimmerman initially got out of his car and followed, Zimmerman initiated every thing prior to the murder, so what would make you think he didn't initiate the attack?

I know what won't let you. Emotions. You look in the mirror and you see Zimmerman. IMO



posted on Apr, 26 2012 @ 08:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by pizzanazi75
reply to post by popsmayhem
 


What if Zimmerman went to grab Trayvons arm to detain him as he went to run? --- Zimmerman aggressor
Trayvon then pulls his elbow away, and being taller than Zimmerman elbows him in the nose? --- Travvon defending himself
Zimerman pursues Trayvon, Trayvon and Zimmerman both lose their footing and stumble to the ground. -- Scrapes on Zimmermans head
They struggle on the ground and zimmerman goes for his gun, gets it, shoots Trayvon.


Trayvon did not have to be the initial aggressor to leave injuries on Zimmerman. all the Zimmerman supporters just assume it must have happened the way Zimmerman said cuz he had a scratch on his head and some blood on his nose. Yes, that is one way it could have happened, but as I just have shown you there are other ways it could have happened that point to Trayvon being the defending his self.......I know in your world it just is not possible in any way for this to be true, but it makes more logical sense. Zimmerman initially called police on Trayvon, Zimmerman initially got out of his car and followed, Zimmerman initiated every thing prior to the murder, so what would make you think he didn't initiate the attack?


What if, what if, what if,
how did zimmerman grab treyvon
by the arm to initiate it if treyvon
was running, which was what made zimmerman
get out of the suv.. Zimmerman could of never
out run treyvon. These what if's are silly.
Zimmerman could not of caught up with treyvon
and try to detain him, treyvon ambushed him
when zimmerman came around the corner



posted on Apr, 26 2012 @ 08:39 PM
link   
So it seems Zimmerman has raised 200k. I know to most that seems like alot of money, but lets use an example of how quickly Americans donate to causes they believe in, and something alot of ATS'er can relate to. Ron Paul can raise how much money in one day in one of his 'money bombs'?

One truth of Americans, we donate money to causes we believe in.

His site was up for over 2 weeks before it was closed. So 200k, in the age of paypal and websites, is like collecting .20 cents in pennies on the street.

Not to mention it may have implications on his bond.



O’Mara says the bail amount may have been higher if the judge knew Zimmerman had raised $200,000.


George Zimmerman attorney says website raised more than $200K, he’ll inform judge on Friday



posted on Apr, 26 2012 @ 08:44 PM
link   
reply to post by pizzanazi75
 


Sorry.. but how about instead of you saying what you think, you post the actual charges?
You can't just choose to go after another charge if one fails. You have to choose the charges before trial.
If she goes after murder 2 she can't say negligent homicide or manslaughter because charging him with those two things would be enough reasonable doubt to get him out of murder 2.

It's you that has no idea what they are talking about.. ever.

You are so full of it always. In a murder in the 2nd case they have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt, if he was also facing manslaughter for the same crime that simple fact would give jurors enough reasonable doubt. I haven't seen what the other charges are. I have looked, but all the pages just show that he was charged with murder 2. Here is the thing, since you have no IDEA what you are talking about. He will not get convicted of murder 2 and he can't be convicted of manslaughter or negligent homicide or any other charges similar. Also to further illustrate how you have no clue as to why she chose murder 2 (you actually believe it is because she has other hard charges against him lol despite their impossibility), she chose it because if it was anything but a murder case it wouldn't be a huge televised case that would make her career. It would just be another case. So she took a huge gamble charging a man with a crime he shouldn't have been charged with and not only will he likely get off, but she will likely destroy her own career with such an idiotic move.
edit on 26-4-2012 by GogoVicMorrow because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 26 2012 @ 08:51 PM
link   
reply to post by popsmayhem
 





how did zimmerman grab treyvon by the arm to initiate it if treyvon was running, which was what made zimmerman get out of the suv


Well thats another one of those 'what ifs' now isn't it. He had to catch up somehow.....and he has told multiple accounts according the investigators and the evidence doesn't add up to his accounts. That's what makes it a 'what if'.




Zimmerman could of never out run treyvon.


You don't know that. You just assume that.




Zimmerman could not of caught up with treyvon and try to detain him, treyvon ambushed him when zimmerman came around the corner


Again, you do not know that.

And let me ask you this......came around what corner? Zimmerman's dad said that he was walking down the sidewalk back from getting an address.....by your account the only way Trayvon could have 'ambushed' Zimmerman was if Zimmerman STILL following Trayvon. He would have had to have been turning the corner of the 'T' in the sidewalk.....away from his vehicle......so if you think Zimmerman was 'ambushed' turning a corner then you also have to admit that Zimmerman was still following Trayvon and not on his way back to his car.

You can't have it all ways. Zimmermans dad said his son told him he was walking on the sidewalk that connected Twin Lakes (where his car was) and Retreat View Circle (which circle the entire perimeter of the complex)....the sidewalk Zimmerman was walking down connects to the sidewalk in the back yards of the town houses on Twin Lakes and Retreat View.....so if Zimmerman is on the connecting sidewalk and walking back toward his truck....and Trayvon is on the back yard sidewalk supposedly hiding, ready to ambush.....then Zimmerman had to have been still following Trayvon....

Your own twisted logic just crumbles what you believe of Zimmerman story....

George Zimmerman's Father Speaks Out On All The Hate His Son Is Getting



posted on Apr, 26 2012 @ 09:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by pizzanazi75
reply to post by GogoVicMorrow
 




He was charged with 2nd degree because the prosecutor believes she has enough evidence to prove that, if a jury thinks she doesn't have enough to prove that BUT she does have enough to prove, say, manslaughter or negligent homicide they can convict on that. She most likely has enough for 2nd degree, if she doesn't she has an abundance to prove manslaughter or negligent homicide.


Here, I want to summarize how this post truly illustrates you have no clue what you are talking about, and make light of the fact that you insulted me with the "in your vast knowledge" comment because in reality it is you that is lacking in the knowledge department.

She didn't choose 2nd degree murder because she can prove it. She chose it because it's a high profile case and if she can make it stick it will be a spectacle that would make her career if she won. In reality it will probably ruin her because she stuck a guy with a charge he should have never got. It's so funny how you admire and glorify anyone that you perceive as on the opposite side of Zimmerman. Second you are dead wrong she can't have negligent homicide, manslaughter, and murder 2 all for the same death because negligent homicide and manslaughter would be enough reasonable doubt to dismiss murder 2. She went all our nothing and again may have destroyed her career (as it should be since she has no respect for the law and only furthering her career). Finally, and this is the best part, you apparently have no idea how our court systems work because you imply that she can fall back on these lesser charges for trayvon's death if she can't get murder 2. She can't just start trying him for other crimes because she didn't get a conviction. If murder 2 doesn't stick she is SOL. Sure she might have some lame charges like discharging a fire arm in city limits (if that's illegal there) or something small, but that isn't what you meant. You were talking about putting him away on a lesser charge. There is no lesser charge that could put him away more than a few days, maybe a couple months. She can't lose for murder 2 and then try to get him for manslaughter and start over.

So yes I was right, no your insult made no sense, and no you couldn't have less knowledge on the subject.
edit on 26-4-2012 by GogoVicMorrow because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 26 2012 @ 09:06 PM
link   
reply to post by GogoVicMorrow
 



Wow ..... you are just completely ignorant. You haven't followed this case and you must not have ever followed any other case.....




Generally, prosecutors will charge a suspect with the highest charge they believe they can get a conviction with. Lesser offenses in the hierarchy are generally understood to be included automatically by most jurisdictions. Prosecutors can and often will request that lesser included offenses be included in the jury instructions so that jurors have the opportunity to choose a lesser offense should they not be convinced of the top charge. This means that should the jury fail to convict on second-degree murder, they could still convict on a lesser charge such as manslaughter.


George Zimmerman Trial Begins: Everything You Need to Know


Now, to leave you with your own words......




It's you that has no idea what they are talking about.. ever.



posted on Apr, 26 2012 @ 09:09 PM
link   
reply to post by pizzanazi75
 


You can repeat BS all you want, no one with any brains is gonna buy it. You keep bringing up irrelevant BS, like what Tray's parents say, and what George's parents say. Guess what, none of what any of them say is relevant, none of them are witnesses in any way, shape or form. What any of those people say have no bearing whatsoever on the case.



posted on Apr, 26 2012 @ 09:10 PM
link   
reply to post by pizzanazi75
 


No guy. You still don't understand. Read my above post.
Yes there will be lesser charges, but we are talking miniscule charges that might get him a couple weeks or 2 or 3 months. There will be no lesser charges like negligent homicide, or manslaughter. There can't be.

Read what I posted. As I said sure he might get a charge like discharging a firearm inside city limits or something, but no there will be no lesser charges like you are thinking.
That is why I asked you to post these lesser charges. I know how the court system works. I know they try to tack on all the charges they can, but if you understood anything about a murder charge you would know they can't add manslaughter, negligent homicide or anything like that because that creates reasonable doubt for murder 2.

So again you have NO idea what you are talking about. I am not the least bit ignorant here, you just can't read. You think if they don't get him for murder 2 they are going to have lesser charges that can get him ten years or something. Sorry that wont happen. I wasn't disputing that there will be lesser charges. I am disputing that they will be anything like what you think. They will be petty charges that will probably be dismissed or he will go on probation for.

edit on 26-4-2012 by GogoVicMorrow because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 26 2012 @ 09:10 PM
link   
reply to post by GogoVicMorrow
 


I proved to you I know exactly what I am talking about. Find a source that says if Zimmerman is cleared of 2nd degree he can't be charged with a lesser offense.....

You don't know what you are talking about.

You just keep making yourself look foolish, over and over.



posted on Apr, 26 2012 @ 09:11 PM
link   
reply to post by pizzanazi75
 


When you are talking about a rational prosecutor, sure. This prosecutor is a lunatic, and charges everyone from 12 year olds, to battered girlfriends protecting herself in her own home. On one side of her mouth she claims she is a victim advocate, yet she creates victims of the "justice system" with her lunatic, zealous behavior.



posted on Apr, 26 2012 @ 09:12 PM
link   
reply to post by GogoVicMorrow
 


Why don't you try reading what I posted....you are just wrong....lesser included will included serious felonies like manslaughter or negligent homicide.....its right in front of you face on your screen.....try reading it.

Her it is one more time for you....




Generally, prosecutors will charge a suspect with the highest charge they believe they can get a conviction with. Lesser offenses in the hierarchy are generally understood to be included automatically by most jurisdictions. Prosecutors can and often will request that lesser included offenses be included in the jury instructions so that jurors have the opportunity to choose a lesser offense should they not be convinced of the top charge. This means that should the jury fail to convict on second-degree murder, they could still convict on a lesser charge such as manslaughter.



posted on Apr, 26 2012 @ 09:13 PM
link   
reply to post by GogoVicMorrow
 


I don't think he understands double jeapordy at all. And no, it's not a game show



posted on Apr, 26 2012 @ 09:13 PM
link   
reply to post by TKDRL
 


That is your opinion of her.

Im sure she has heard much, much, much worse.



posted on Apr, 26 2012 @ 09:16 PM
link   
reply to post by pizzanazi75
 


My God. Am I talking to a 5 year old? Seriously.
Do you not understand what beyond a reasonable doubt means?

Ok I will try to explain it to you. If they charged him with manslaughter as a lesser charge that would be enough doubt that he could not be convicted of second degree murder. Why do you think there was no negligent homicide or manslaughter charges in the Casey Anthony case? The lesser charges were all way lesser. You can't charge someone with three charges for the same crime. It's either one or the other. You have shown yourself to be truly ignorant. The lesser charges have to be other lesser crimes committed because there are so many laws if you commit a big crime you usually commit a bunch of smaller things they can tack on.
I have asked you three times to find me the lesser charges.

While you are at it do a little reading about what proving murder beyond a reasonable doubt it and maybe you can start to understand why charging manslaughter would make it impossible to convict him for murder 2. It can't be both.



posted on Apr, 26 2012 @ 09:16 PM
link   
reply to post by TKDRL
 


I don't think you understand lesser included charges.

Double jeopardy and lesser included charges are 2 entirely different things.

Keep making comments like that, please, they are just completely ignorant. If I was you I'd be a little embarrassed by that comment. It's one of the top ten silliest comments in this huge thread.

Way to go!!!



posted on Apr, 26 2012 @ 09:17 PM
link   
reply to post by pizzanazi75
 


Oh wow, coming from you that is rich lmao. Hey look everyone, pizzanazi75 said I said something ignorant..... Does anyone care? *cricket*

Let me explain it to you in as small words as I can. Double jeapordy, you cannot put someone on trial for the same death more than once. You have one shot at it. In a high profile case, if you go for murder two, and try and tack on something like manslaughter on top, you blow the one chance you get at prosecuting. Any juror with half a brain would see that you are just trying to get this person for something, it's just a personal vendetta, and vote not guilty to all. Only takes one person with brains in the jury to hang it. Got it?
edit on Thu, 26 Apr 2012 21:22:52 -0500 by TKDRL because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 26 2012 @ 09:20 PM
link   
LoL!

Aside from 9/11, this thread/topic is undoubtedly the biggest circle jerk in the history of ATS.



posted on Apr, 26 2012 @ 09:20 PM
link   
reply to post by pizzanazi75
 


He isn't charged with manslaughter though. He can't be. I never said that the jury couldnt suggest it, but the prosecutor can't charge him with it. You need to work on your reading comprehension.

I am simply pointing out that you actually thought the prosecutor had manslaughter or negligent homicide as lesser charges when that is completely ignorant.
Actually I will quote you as it more adequately describes you



Wow ..... you are just completely ignorant.


I am saying that if she charged him with manslaughter or negligent homicide it would completely negate the murder 2 charge. What part of this aren't you understanding?



new topics

top topics



 
105
<< 288  289  290    292  293  294 >>

log in

join