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

Think about it, how would you take out some
one so much bigger. only way treyvon could of done
this was in an ambush plain and simple. Lets use our heads folks.
how did some little kid
get on top of big bad zimmerman?
How can anyone believe this little
kid unarmed took down a huge monster
armed like zimmerman.. Well there is only one
way this could be done AMBUSH!

Treyvon was running big old zimmerman
would of never caught up with treyvon.
Treyvon waited for zimmerman and ambushed him
plain and simple

reply to post by pizzanazi75


Double jeopardy wouldn't apply, but you just showed that you don't have any understanding of it. It means you can't be charged for the same crime twice. It doesn't mean you can't be charged with the same crime twice if the charge is the same. Man just give up you are making yourself look foolish. You are so oversensitive you can't even comprehend when someone is pointing out your fallacy. You try to twist it so you can call them ignorant. The fact remains have been wrong about several things on this page alone.

You have never admitted that the prosecutor didn't have lesser charges including anything similar to manslaughter or negligent homicide. Instead you resorted to some argument about the jury. I was obviously taking about the prosecutor and how she went for the highest charge to further her career and it was a bad move. She will lose that top conviction. She can't make all the charges you think she can make. What the jury can suggest wasn't even what we were talking about.

According to US News and World report, Florida does allow for convictions on lesser charges by the jury, even if the prosecution did not specifically charge Zimmerman with that particular crime.
Link

I have my doubts about what charges they would be able to get a guilty verdict on, but it could happen.

If it even makes it to trial.

Originally posted by butcherguy
According to US News and World report, Florida does allow for convictions on lesser charges by the jury, even if the prosecution did not specifically charge Zimmerman with that particular crime.
Link

I have my doubts about what charges they would be able to get a guilty verdict on, but it could happen.

If it even makes it to trial.

Exactly right
Zimmerman can always take a plea deal,
if it is sweet enough..
I would not do over 3 years.
If it was over 3 years I would take it to jury

reply to post by butcherguy


Yeah.. I know. That wasn't the argument.
He was praising the prosecutor and saying she charged him with something along the lines of manslaughter/neg homicide as a lesser charge. I was pointing out that that would destroy her case. So she has to argue that it wasn't manslaughter or neg homicide if she wants to win for murder 2.

She has to convice the jury that it WAS NOT manslaughter or neg homicide if she wants to get murder 2. So she has herself over a barrel because if she doesn't want to look like a total clown she has to argue against the only convictions Zimmerman could have gotten and it still have been reasonable.

If she says it was neg homicide or manslaughter once her case is blown. The jury has to hear about how it wasn't those things and then come to decide it was on their own. She got greedy for attention and fame.

Pizzanazi can't seem to wrap his head around this though. As punishment for his lack of comprehension I get called ignorant for half a page.

reply to post by GogoVicMorrow


Do you not understand what lesser included charge means?

You like to bring up Casey Anthony. She was charged with lesser included felony crimes....she was acquitted of those lesser charges.

If you find Caylee Marie Anthony was killed by Casey Marie Anthony, you will then consider the circumstances surrounding the killing in deciding if the killing was Murder in the First Degree or was Murder in the Second Degree or Manslaughter or Third Degree Felony Murderwhether the killing was excusable or resulted from justifiable use of deadly force

JURY INSTRUCTIONS

Ive provided you the information that shows that lesser included charges will also apply in Zimmermans case, but since you didn't believe me the first 3 times. Here is another source from the FL supreme court....

SCHEDULE OF LESSER INCLUDED OFFENSES

Second Degree Depraved mind murder....category 1 - manslaughter, category 2 - third degree felony murder,

Now, quit accusing people of not reading or not being able to understand and you yourself try reading and understanding. You obviously don't get that lesser included charges will be included and were included in the Casey Anthony trial you like to bring up. It just shows you also didn't follow along in those cases either yet you still claim to know what you are talking about.

For a site that want to 'deny ignorance' it sure is awfully thick around here.

reply to post by pizzanazi75


Read my above post and try to understand it. That is all I ask.
The prosecutor could NOT have charged Zimmerman with lesser charges that create reasonable doubt for the highest charge. The jury can come to a decision that is was manslaughter, but by the time they are ready to make a decision the prosecutor will have presented a case stating that it cannot be manslaughter or negligent homicide because she is arguing that it is murder in the second degree.

Are you getting this yet? If I pound it into your head much harder I'll be up on charges.

The jury will never hear an argument for neg homicide or manslaughter because if she argues for those charges for even a second there is enough reasonable doubt that she loses murder 2 and trust me she does NOT want that. So the jury will here the defense say he is innocent of all charges and they will hear the prosecutor say it wasn't manslaughter and it wasn't neg homicide, but that it can only be murder 2 (which she can't prove). They will never hear an argument for neg homicide or manslaughter so it wouldn't be likely that they would go out on there own and decide a charge that they haven't heard one scrap of evidence promoting.

Originally posted by GogoVicMorrow
reply to post by butcherguy

 

Yeah.. I know. That wasn't the argument.
He was praising the prosecutor and saying she charged him with something along the lines of manslaughter/neg homicide as a lesser charge. I was pointing out that that would destroy her case. So she has to argue that it wasn't manslaughter or neg homicide if she wants to win for murder 2.

She has to convice the jury that it WAS NOT manslaughter or neg homicide if she wants to get murder 2. So she has herself over a barrel because if she doesn't want to look like a total clown she has to argue against the only convictions Zimmerman could have gotten and it still have been reasonable.

If she says it was neg homicide or manslaughter once her case is blown. The jury has to hear about how it wasn't those things and then come to decide it was on their own. She got greedy for attention and fame.

Pizzanazi can't seem to wrap his head around this though. As punishment for his lack of comprehension I get called ignorant for half a page.

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

Your statements above prove you don't understand 'lesser included charges'.......

the prosecution doesn't have to prove he didn't commit certain crimes to prove that he did commit other crimes....

Im guessing your application for law school was rejected. You make such silly, actually laugh out loud funny.

Wow.

Originally posted by GogoVicMorrow
reply to post by pizzanazi75

 

Read my above post and try to understand it. That is all I ask.
The prosecutor could NOT have charged Zimmerman with lesser charges that create reasonable doubt for the highest charge. The jury can come to a decision that is was manslaughter, but by the time they are ready to make a decision the prosecutor will have presented a case stating that it cannot be manslaughter or negligent homicide because she is arguing that it is murder in the second degree.

Are you getting this yet? If I pound it into your head much harder I'll be up on charges.

I get it. I get that you don't understand how a courtroom works or what lesser included charges are.

Like I said, keep making you comments, they are so ridiculous that it just proves that you don't have a grasp on much of this case or the very basics of law.

reply to post by GogoVicMorrow

Yeah, I got what you were saying. Some jurisdictions actually have to include lesser charges in indictments in order to get a conviction on any of them, I just wanted to make it clear.

A lot of the time, it is fairly easy to get a manslaughter conviction with a dead body present in the aftermath, but in this case, I am not sure how you could convince a jury when the guy that was the shooter had trauma to the face and the back of his head, and is claiming self defense. Add to that an eyewitness that saw the decedent beating the shooter....

Originally posted by butcherguy
According to US News and World report, Florida does allow for convictions on lesser charges by the jury, even if the prosecution did not specifically charge Zimmerman with that particular crime.
Link

I have my doubts about what charges they would be able to get a guilty verdict on, but it could happen.

If it even makes it to trial.

Maybe you should tell that to fellow Zimmerman supporter GogoVicMorrow.....he just can't seem to understand. Ive pointed it out to him and he just like to say I didn't understand what I was talking about.....maybe you could chat with him and let him know I was right.

Its nice to see when you guys can't even agree amongst yourselves.

reply to post by pizzanazi75


Dude.. I know what lesser charges are. I am telling you that the only lesser charges they will have heard arguments for are WAY lesser charges stuff you get probation for. The lesser charges you were discussing such as manslaughter and so forth they wont have heard any arguments for and have actually heard arguments against from both the prosecutor and defense. It is crazy that you are still trying to insult someone who has completely schooled you on this as you try to wriggle out.

OK. Aside from negligent homicide or manslaughter what lesser charges are you talking about? I would love to know what charges you are talking about. Don't just say lesser charges. Spit them out. Don't insult me after I have explained this a million times to you.

reply to post by pizzanazi75


No you just can't keep your arguments straight. Or maybe you are behind I don't know. Catch up.
I was never talking about the jury, but now that I am read what I have posted and learn a thing or two.

Originally posted by butcherguy
reply to post by GogoVicMorrow

 

Yeah, I got what you were saying. Some jurisdictions actually have to include lesser charges in indictments in order to get a conviction on any of them, I just wanted to make it clear.

A lot of the time, it is fairly easy to get a manslaughter conviction with a dead body present in the aftermath, but in this case, I am not sure how you could convince a jury when the guy that was the shooter had trauma to the face and the back of his head, and is claiming self defense. Add to that an eyewitness that saw the decedent beating the shooter....

HA....now you change your tune after someone on your 'side' tell you its the truth......That just proves you only listen when it comes from someone you want to hear it from. Facts be damned to you!!!!!!

How embarrassing for you.

reply to post by GogoVicMorrow


I know its no fun to be backed into a corner.

I don't have an 'argument' to keep straight. I have the evidence provided so far and what the law in FL is. The only people who have to keep a 'argument' straight are those who are lying.

Keeping facts straight is not hard.

reply to post by butcherguy


Yeah.. what's furthermore is that she can't convince the jury. She can't ever try to convince them it was manslaughter because then she forfeits her murder 2 conviction. She actually has to tell the jury that it couldn't be manslaughter. She has to convince them it can be nothing but murder 2. So the jury will have to come to that conclusion on their own with even the prosecutor saying it wasn't manslaughter. That is what I don't think this guy I am arguing with gets. I'm done the he's actually gotten so obnoxious and insistent on remaining ignorant that I don't even want to talk about it. His lust for punishing a stranger outweighs his desire to learn something I think is pretty interesting.

Since she has to prove beyond a reasonable doubt she actually has to argue against the lesser charges the jury could come to on their own. She has to convince them it's not manslaughter (I have to clarify here for pizzanazi that it is a lesser conviction not derived from the actual lesser charges made by the prosecutor). It will be strange if the jury sits and hears from both sides how it can't be manslaughter and then they decide it was. I am out though. Take it easy.

reply to post by pizzanazi75

HA....now you change your tune

I will have to ask you what you mean, 'change my tune'?

I posted what can happen in a jury trial in Florida. I didn't retract what I said at all.

If anything, I backed you up.

What has caused you to be so filled with hate? Is it because of my race?

Originally posted by GogoVicMorrow
reply to post by pizzanazi75

 

Dude.. I know what lesser charges are. I am telling you that the only lesser charges they will have heard arguments for are WAY lesser charges stuff you get probation for. The lesser charges you were discussing such as manslaughter and so forth they wont have heard any arguments for and have actually heard arguments against from both the prosecutor and defense. It is crazy that you are still trying to insult someone who has completely schooled you on this as you try to wriggle out.

OK. Aside from negligent homicide or manslaughter what lesser charges are you talking about? I would love to know what charges you are talking about. Don't just say lesser charges. Spit them out. Don't insult me after I have explained this a million times to you.

What do you now mean, 'OK. Aside from negligent homicide or manslaughter'? Those are the lesser included charges that could be brought. The link I provided from the FL supreme court also said 3rd degree murder.....how many more do you want?

Those are felony offenses, he will do jail time for those, and not just 3 or 4 months like you like to think....

I guess you forgot you wrote this.....

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.

Now your own words have proven you wrong. Just admit you were wrong and in your wrong state of mind you acted childish and accused another member who was correct of being wrong.

Can't deny your own words..........

Originally posted by butcherguy
reply to post by pizzanazi75

 

HA....now you change your tune

I will have to ask you what you mean, 'change my tune'?

I posted what can happen in a jury trial in Florida. I didn't retract what I said at all.

If anything, I backed you up.

What has caused you to be so filled with hate? Is it because of my race?

I was responding to the response the post to you from the member who kept accusing me of being wrong....then when you confirmed I was right, he changed his tune. I replied to his post that was in reply to yours, I never said you were changing your tune....I was saying he was changing his tune, as is evident by this....

reply to post by GogoVicMorrow

I am not filled with hate. What caused you to jump on my back and accuse me of something when I never said those words to you?

What has filled you with so much hate? Is it my race?

I am not filled with hate. What caused you to jump on my back and accuse me of something when I never said those words to you?

Originally posted by pizzanazi75

Originally posted by butcherguy
reply to post by GogoVicMorrow

 

Yeah, I got what you were saying. Some jurisdictions actually have to include lesser charges in indictments in order to get a conviction on any of them, I just wanted to make it clear.

A lot of the time, it is fairly easy to get a manslaughter conviction with a dead body present in the aftermath, but in this case, I am not sure how you could convince a jury when the guy that was the shooter had trauma to the face and the back of his head, and is claiming self defense. Add to that an eyewitness that saw the decedent beating the shooter....

HA....now you change your tune after someone on your 'side' tell you its the truth......That just proves you only listen when it comes from someone you want to hear it from. Facts be damned to you!!!!!!

How embarrassing for you.

Well, sorry then.
You might see my confusion, as you actually replied to my post.