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

reply to post by pizzanazi75


No it's just clear that you don't understand how this works. I will lay it our for you one last time in an easy to understand format.

The prosecutor can't charge Zimmerman with lesser charges like manslaughter or neg homicide because those create reasonable doubt that destroys her murder 2 case. (She won't make lesser charges that create reasonable doubt for murder 2, got it?)

She can't and won't argue and urge the jury to convict on manslaughter or neg homicide if they don't think he is guilty of murder because again that destroys her murder 2 case.

The jury can convict him of manslaughter or lesser charges however they have to come to that conviction on their own, but it isn't likely.

It isn't likely that they would come to similar lesser charges on their own because they will never have heard evidence supporting that charge because they will have just heard both the defense and prosecution arguing against the the neg homicide and manslaughter charges.

The prosecutor can never argue in support of neg homicide or manslaughter because it his her job to convince them it is murder 2 and so to effectively convince it is murder 2 beyond a reasonable doubt she has to argue that it WAS NOT either of those other charges.

There can and will probably be lesser charges, but they will not be anything close to the ones you thought (they will be tiny offenses tacked on to get him for anything and everything if the case fails (usually they amount to a year or so in jail/probation depending on what they are).

This prosecutor hurt her on case and credibility (as you can see by reading any other prosecutors opinion on the charges) by going with an outrageous charge because she was fame hungry and greedy. If she had charged him with manslaughter she could have argued manslaughter and anything leading up to manslaughter and she could have very possibly won.

You were wrong about her charging him with neg homicide and manslaughter as lesser charges. Wrong, period. If the jury comes to an independent conviction like manslaughter they will have done so against all evidence from both the prosecutor and defense because there will never be one argument supporting manslaughter. They can still do it but without ever hearing to do so from the prosecutor.

Is it easier to understand broken down?

reply to post by pizzanazi75


I mean that those charges wont be brought by the prosecutor. They can't be. He can be convicted of one by the jury, but they aren't the charges so I want to know what charges you think the prosecution brought. What are the charges against Zimmerman right at this very moment. That is what I have been asking for for pages now.

Those are not currently charges against Zimmerman. Those are possibilities for independent convictions by the jury if the decide against both the prosecution and the defense. I am explaining to you that those are not charges as of now and for the jury to decide those they will have to sit through a trial where both the prosecutions and the defense are telling them that Zimmerman is not guilty of manslaughter or neg homicide. Please tell me you at lease understand. I know you are on the constant offensive, but just tell me you understand that.

I wasn't wrong. I never argued that there wouldn't be some sort of lesser charges, I even gave an example of what one might be a page or so back. I said that neg homicide and manslaughter (which I have now typed like a hundred times trying to make you understand) are not in the lesser charges brought by the prosecution. You have yet to show that they are (i know that they aren't). I never said there wouldn't be lesser charges of some sort, just that those wouldn't be them and they arent. I also never said that he couldn't be convicted of those things, just that they are not charges as of now. You still have never even shown that they are. You keep arguing but you have never ever proven that those two things, or even one of those things are currently charges. Instead you went completely outside of the argument and brought in the jury and what they could decide which had nothing to do with what we were talking about. Have a good day man. You are pretty obnoxious and I am glad I don't know you in real life.

reply to post by butcherguy


No, I replied to his reply to your post. I was replying to him.

But why so much hate towards me, I knew you was agreeing with me and backing up my claim, if you read my posts you would have known that...so one more time....why all the hate towards me? Like you asked me, with out justification , is it because of my race?

this was your original comment....

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.

I responded to that with this...

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.

See, I knew you were agreeing.

Why all the hate? My race?

reply to post by pizzanazi75


He wasn't really agreeing with your original point because you were wrong.

He was agreeing that the jury can come up with an independent decision and convict Zimmerman of a lesser crime. We were arguing that negligent homicide and manslaughter were not charges against Zimmerman made by the prosecution. You brought in the jury as a deflection because you saw a way to weasel out of being wrong.

reply to post by GogoVicMorrow


butcherguy .... you need to talk to your fellow comrade here....he still isn't getting it, and he won't listen to me. That has been established. So have a chat with him and make him understand how lesser included charges work so he won't continue to make himself look foolish.

i'm starting to feel sorry for you actually, i keep my reasons why to myself.

reply to post by pizzanazi75

No, I replied to his reply to your post. I was replying to him.

Uh, no.

It is right there in the very last post on the preceding page for you to see, plain as day. You replied to me.

Here it is again....

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.

Refer directly to it if you must, even though it is your post: Link

reply to post by GogoVicMorrow


For the love of mercy......you don't get lesser included charges....what does the word 'included' mean to you?

It means if you are charged with 'X' then 'Y, Z, Q, and P, etc, will also be included in the original charges and may be considered at jury deliberations. That is what included means.......its really not this hard to understand, is it?

Ive provided the FL Supreme court link to you .... others have pointed it out to you....I can't do any more to make you understand.

reply to post by pizzanazi75


I've already explained several times how lesser charges work. You don't seem to understand anything.
It's pretty sickening that you can spend so much time here and not have one ounce of real conversation in you.

We aren't just talking about lesser charges we are talking about the possibility of two particular charges being included as lesser charges and I am explaining how it is not possible for the prosecutor to include them herself.

Do me one thing and I will drop it. Give us the current list of charges. All of them. I think the reason you have gone on so long is because you have seen them and know that I am right and that the charges you though she had as lesser charges in fact aren't included.

reply to post by pizzanazi75


What you don't seem to understand is that the prosecutor cannot simultaneously make a case for both manslaughter and murder 2 because it creates reasonable doubt. That is what I am explaining to you. So she can't put that in her charges. Yes the jury can convict him of a lesser charge, but it is not included in her charge and she can not argue it. All she can do, if she feels she is not getting her conviction and all is lost, is ask the jury to consider a lesser charge. They will have heard no argument to support the lesser charge.

Originally posted by butcherguy
reply to post by pizzanazi75

 

posted on 26-4-2012 @ 09:50 PM butcherguy
No, I replied to his reply to your post. I was replying to him.

Uh, no.

It is right there in the very last post on the preceding page for you to see, plain as day. You replied to me.

Here it is again....

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.

Refer directly to it if you must, even though it is your post: Link

Un no, I replied to that above quote....I was replying to the person that posted it.

Say me, you and him are in a real conversation..

You said something, then he replied, then I replied to the statements just made by him.

Regardless...you keep ignoring the points that you brought up and when I bring them up you won't answer.....

Why so much hate ? Is it because of my race?

posted on 26-4-2012 @ 09:50 PM butcherguy
What has caused you to be so filled with hate? Is it because of my race?

reply to post by butcherguy


I am thinking he might get off in the pretrial anyway. I don't know he hasn't really had a fair shake with all the lawmakers and people coming out against him and saying he shouldn't get to use SYG just because what the media was saying. Before they saw any evidence even the politicians were taking sides. I really doubt Zimmerman will get a conviction and I actually look forward to talking to pizzanazi afterwards.

See.. now he or should I say they, are arguing with you about who made what post. I hope this poster is gone after this topic is. They are troll through and through. I suggest we just both leave pzza to argue with himself.

Originally posted by GogoVicMorrow
reply to post by pizzanazi75

 

What you don't seem to understand is that the prosecutor cannot simultaneously make a case for both manslaughter and murder 2 because it creates reasonable doubt. That is what I am explaining to you. So she can't put that in her charges. Yes the jury can convict him of a lesser charge, but it is not included in her charge and she can not argue it. All she can do, if she feels she is not getting her conviction and all is lost, is ask the jury to consider a lesser charge. They will have heard no argument to support the lesser charge.

OMG....Ill ask again...what doe 'included' mean to you?

And what you don't seem to understand is that, yes, she can make a case for manslaughter and murder 2 at the same time.

This conversation between me and you is done. I pointed out to you you were wrong. A Zimmerman supporter pointed out to you you were wrong. Yet you still insist you weren't wrong and that the only one wrong is me. You can't even see how absurd your behavior is.

This issue is closed between me and you, you have been shown to be blatantly wrong in this regard and its silly to even continue in this circle with you.

Just admit you are wrong and have been called out by both sides of this discussions.

reply to post by pizzanazi75

If you hit the link that I provided for you, it will take you to your post that is proof (in itself) that you did respond to me.
You didn't respond to someone else. You may have meant to, but you quoted my post to you, and responded to it.

reply to post by pizzanazi75


This is the last time I will comment, but tell me. How do you make a case for manslaughter and murder 2 when you have to prove murder 2 beyond a reasonable doubt. The simple fact that you are trying to make a case for manslaughter creates reasonable doubt for murder 2.

I am really blown away that I have had to explain that so many times.

Originally posted by butcherguy
reply to post by pizzanazi75

 

If you hit the link that I provided for you, it will take you to your post that is proof (in itself) that you did respond to me.
You didn't respond to someone else. You may have meant to, but you quoted my post to you, and responded to it.

It may have shown up to you that I 'replied' to you...but anyone following the conversation knew the reply was to the person replying to you, not you.....you posted something, the other guy who agreed with you but disagreed with me said something and I replied to his statement.....but ok, have it your way if it will make you feel better.

You still have ignored my request that you answer the questions that you posed to me in the first place....remember....ive asked like 3 times now.....why won't you answer?

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

You asked me, I answered, and then I ask turned around and asked you and you ignore it. Why is that? Why bring up something irrelevant and try to accuse me of things and then be too afraid to answer the questions yourself. Weak.

reply to post by GogoVicMorrow


This is how, Ive told you before. I can't make you understand......

Lesser-included offense n. in criminal law, a crime which is proved by the same facts as a more serious crime

lesser-included offense

Do you understand now? Let me answer that for you, no you don't.

Pizzanazi, I am not filled with hate.

I do not know your race, nor do I care to know.

I sincerely hope that you feel better now.

reply to post by pizzanazi75

You asked me, I answered, and then I ask turned around and asked you and you ignore it. Why is that? Why bring up something irrelevant and try to accuse me of things and then be too afraid to answer the questions yourself. Weak.

BTW, pizzanazi, I asked for a reason why you are so full of hate.
I didn't call you weak. What have I done to belittle you?

You can be as mean as you want to, I just asked you why you are mean. If it is because of my race, I would wonder which race it would be.

Originally posted by butcherguy
Pizzanazi, I am not filled with hate.

I do not know your race, nor do I care to know.

I sincerely hope that you feel better now.

No, I dont feel better now.

Now I want to know what you thought you were accomplishing by bringing it up? Was that some sort of tactic you were trying to use to undermine me? It makes no sense for you to make that comment unless you were trying to bait the thread. Is that was you was trying to do? What was your motivation in trying say I was being and hateful and then it accuse it on your race? Please explain.

Then maybe Ill be happy. My happiness does depend on your views of me, of course.

Originally posted by popsmayhem
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

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

so why did zimmermans father say that his son told him he is the one who confronted trayvon? your story keeps going back and forth, first trayvon was some big bad ass and zimmerman was a little guy, now trayvon is a little kid and zimmerman is a huge monster?