The Beezzer's Court

Originally posted by TheXoor
White justice from a mostly white messageboard.

Surprise, surprise...

This thread concerned itself with
Means. The ability of the defendant to commit the crime.
Motive. The reason the defendant had to commit the crime.
Intent. Specific mental purpose to perform a deed.
Oppourtunity. Whether or not the defendant had the chance to commit the crime.

Take your race-baiting trash somewhere else.

Here, we use reasoned debate.

Originally posted by mamabeth
I am a gun owner and licensed to carry a concealed handgun.
I voted guilty because...
1.The 911 operator told him not to follow the kid.
2.He was suppose to let the police do their job,not
try and do it for them.
3.His homeowners association did not want him patroling
the neighborhood with a gun.
4.Your license to carry doesn't give you a license to act
like a cop wannabe.
5.Your license doesn't allow you to run after another with
the intention to shoot.
6.When someone is trying to get away from you,they are no
longer considered a threat.
His duty was to report to the authorities and let them handle the situation.
He took matters into his hands and didn't back off when told to.I think
he is guilty of manslaughter.Last but not least,this case is giving
fuel to those who are trying to take our guns away from us.He acted
poorly and made bad decisions that could effect many across the U.S.

I agree with many of your points, my hat's off to you for being impartial, honest and fair.

But what would he be guilty of? Murder or Unintentional Manslaughter?

reply to post by TheXoor


Are you serious? That's all you have?
Do you even know what color I am?

I guess you should have participated then huh?

reply to post by TDawgRex


He was a grown man chasing after a kid with a gun.
I think that he is guilty of manslaughter.

MY personal opinion.

Means. The ability of the defendant to commit the crime.
Motive. The reason the defendant had to commit the crime.
Intent. Specific mental purpose to perform a deed.
Oppourtunity. Whether or not the defendant had the chance to commit the crime.

He (Zimmerman) had the means. He owned a handgun.
He had the oppourtunity. He as the watch captain.
He had the motive. It may have been self-defense, but it was the reason he pulled the trigger.

But was it his intent to shoot and kill a person that night?

I don't think so.

reply to post by mamabeth


That’s one of the things that grates my nerves about the US Justice system concerning cases that involve the death of a individual.

The varying degrees.

Justifiable Homicide
Unintentional Manslaughter
Manslaughter
2nd degree Murder
1st degree Murder
Murder

I realize that I have a simplistic view, my take on it is; if you take some ones else’s life, it was either intentional or not.

In my thinking if you are tried and found guilty of Unintentional Manslaughter, it was due to an accident or negligence on your part.

If you decide that your life is in jeopardy while someone is breaking into your home and you shoot them, then it is Justifiable Homicide, but you did think, meaning it was intentional, before acting, even if it was only momentarily. I do understand that in moments like this the thinking is more emotional rather than rational, but I’m good with that.

The other degrees of murder are just plea bargaining in my book.

See why I like exercises like this? It makes me break out of my comfortable way of thinking.

I'd like to tell everyone that participated:

[size=10]Nicely Done!

That was as good as Matlock or Perry Mason!

See ya,
Milt

PS:
Except for one, I just "bought" a round of stars for every post in this thread. You guys deserved it!

I've been following this thread with interest, and must say that hung jury to the tune of about 50/50 was about what I expected. Heck, my own opinions about the case are about 50/50 at this point, until (unless) more evidence comes out. I don't believe in convicting anyone of anything really serious (murder) unless there is overwhelming evidence. That said, whether Trayvon was fighting Zimmerman or vise versa, it's a tragedy.

Ah the jury has spoken.

This has been my favorite expirience here at ATS. Such an awesome idea, I'm so glad I was part of it.

My personal opinion is that we shouldn't crucify Zimmerman, but we can't let him walk free either like nothing happened.

To xoor: I'm hispanic, latino, whatever you want to call us. And I was arguing against Zimmerman.
Race was irrelevant in this trial, guaranteed.

reply to post by beezzer


neural linguistic programing + business law class + countless hours of watching crappy law related shows, I would like to thank my follow lawyers for their input and bezzer for coming up with a fun idea

I went for guilty, but for me it was manslaughter not murder.
I think Mama and beezzer said it all already.
For me, a 17 year old is still a kid.
I think the guy is not guilty of a premeditated murder but manslaughter, yes.
Of course I could only go with what evidence was provided in this thread.
Nice one guys, job well done in the sense that we came together and voted on facts not emotions.
I can see some nice cases coming up in the future, I hope so anyway.

reply to post by Dembow


you did a good job as prosecution Dembow.

reply to post by digital01anarchy


Thanks Digital!

I enjoyed debating with you guys!
I tip my hat to you and the defense team, nice work.

And Beezzer, this was a great idea, thanks for letting me participate.
We should do this again, who knows, maybe this is the start of a "court forum"?

reply to post by Dembow

I'd like that.
I'm just mulling over what hot topic/case to grab next.

reply to post by beezzer


Maybe we could try Brutus for the murder of Ceaser?

Was it justifiable homicide for the good of the State or was it an assassination to gain power for himself.

And what timeline would we play by? Shakespeare rules or Historical?

What about abortion in the rabbit world?

Al Quada (sp?) for 9/11?
Lee Harvey Oswald for JFK?


Ooooh, the mind boggles. . . . .

reply to post by beezzer


I, myself would avoid 9/11 or JFK as a trial as they both have well known conspiricies roots. And many within this community have already made up their mind...it would be a Mods nightmare. If they were to play SCOATS.

Lincoln I could see, maybe even Patton.

What trial to pick would be a trial unto itself.

How about homo sapiens vs neanderthal?

What about the Illuminati, still an active secret society or not?
Nice ideas there peeps
There's so many different topics. I'll be checking this thread. Yes, lets hope it turns into a court forum.
Would be quite good.

Adiooooosssssssss