It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by HomeBrew
How the jury decides to decipher the evidence is their job, if they decide that Zimmermans testimony is simply not beyond a shadow of doubt, supporting evidence is inconclusive, and are left with only one undisputable fact, that he killed Martin, then they are well within their rights to find guilty.
Originally posted by TKDRL
MAy I use your doll please? LMAO
Originally posted by Grimpachi
reply to post by LadyGreenEyes
I don’t think they are crucial to the defense but they are more like icing on the cake.
BTW have you noticed that 99% of the TM supporters have stopped posting anything about this case. They were all so sure he was guilty and talked so much smack now they are nowhere to be found.
Especially the ones that were making this out to be about race.
Originally posted by Soloprotocol
Just something for those who say the gunshot residue on the clothing and chest indicates that Trayvon was on top to consider.
Is it possible that the reason for the clothing not to be in contact with his skin when the shot was fired is because Zimmerman had a hold of the Jacket and was pulling it away from Trayvon when he pulled the trigger.
In a fight you get hold of whatever you can to gain the upper hand....Just a small observation that some of you seem to have overlooked.
Originally posted by GogoVicMorrow
I also know Rick Scott is a slime bag, and that Obama was appealing to his fan club that thinks he's a messiah, and that he shouldn have taken a side on a racial issue. Especially with no facts.
I guess, though, that I didn't consider how far up the commands for a special prosecutor came from.
Originally posted by FlyersFan
reply to post by hounddoghowlie
They've been snotty and uptight all this week. On Monday the prosecution came in and their voices were raised and a few times they even laughed at the witness'. On Tuesday the prosecution acted like they had given up. Today they are being weenies. That's the best description.
Originally posted by IvanAstikov
reply to post by GogoVicMorrow
One could equally say that George's testimony/witness statements were tailored to what he knew could have been witnessed, and any surprise witnesses that came forward he could claim were mistaken, as it was too dark to see anything clearly.
Originally posted by TKDRL
The screams for help started WELL before the gun came out......
How is Culpable Negligence Defined Under Florida Law?
As defined under Florida case law and the Florida Standard Jury Instructions, “Culpable
Negligence” is a course of conduct showing reckless disregard for human life, or for the safety of
persons exposed to its dangerous effects, or such an entire want of care as to raise a presumption
of conscious indifference to consequences, or which shows wantonness, recklessness, or a
grossly careless disregard for the safety and welfare of others.
Under Section 784.05, Florida Statutes, the crime of Culpable Negligence consists of two elements:
(1) the accused exposed a person to personal injury or inflicted personal injury on that person, and
(2) the accused did so with “culpable negligence.” If the incident of Culpable Negligence involves a
child gaining access to firearms (a third degree felony), it must also be shown that the accused
stored or left the loaded firearm within the reach or easy access of the minor.
782.07 Manslaughter; aggravated manslaughter of an elderly
person or disabled adult; aggravated manslaughter of a child;
aggravated manslaughter of an officer, a firefighter, an emergency
medical technician, or a paramedic.—
(3) A person who causes the death of any person under the age
of 18 by culpable negligence under s. 827.03(2)(b) commits
aggravated manslaughter of a child, a felony of the first degree,
punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084.