Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search
 

John2

(2,730 posts)
70. OK,
Wed Jul 17, 2013, 05:02 PM
Jul 2013

I'm reading the statute:
1. The unlawful killing of a human being. This has to be proven it was unlawful. We know a human being was killed by Zimmerman.

1) premeditated is debatable
2) f,g,n,o and q (kidnapping,Escape,aggravated stalking,murder of another human being,
aggravated fleeing or eluding with serious bodily injury or death) are all elements that are debatable. Take your pick?

(2). the unlawful killing of a human being, when perpetrated by an act imminently dangerous to another and evincing a depraved mind regardless of human life, although without any premeditated design to effect the death of a particular individual is murder in the second degree

and constitutes the felony of the first degree, punishment by a term not exceeding life.

1. George Zimmerman did kill Trayvon Martin. That is a proven fact. Was it lawful or unlawful?
2. Why did George Zimmerman cause the death of Trayvon Martin? George Zimmerman thought Trayvon Martin was suspicous and reported that on a 911 call. In the 911 call, George Zimmerman described Trayvon Martin as an Ahole,punk, and up to no good. He also described Trayvon Martin comming towards his vehicle and saying, What is this guy's deal. He then claimed Martin had something in his hands and looked like he was on drugs or something. He also described Martin circling his vehicle.

That whole conversation indicates ill will towards Martin. Zimmerman went on to say, Trayvon Martin ran. In fact in his words, "Oh shit, he is running." There was evidence Zimmerman took off after Martin, (door bells chiming) and the 911 operator verifying he did. He was advised not to. Even though he said OK, didn't prove he did. He was also heard cursing, these Aholes or [punks always get away). It further shows ill will towards Martin and his obsession about Martin getting away. Those are elements of a depraved mind.

The elements for concerns of human life and imminent danger, has to consider the actions of George Zimmerman and Trayvon Martin when it comes to intent and what both persons were thinking or their actions, which can reasonably be inferred.

George Zimmerman did not only aggressively pursue Trayvon Martin, but he did it with a Deadly weapon (gun) which was already loaded and placed in firing position. his excuse was that he always carry a gun in his holster, loaded and ready to fire. I don't know any prudent person that does that, or any safety expert that would recommend that? He intended to use that gun from the moment he went after Martin.

Martin on the other hand had reasonable concerns to believe George Zimmerman was an imminent danger to him. When George Zimmerman didn't identify himself and took out after him as soon as he ran, illustrates, that he had some apprehension of Zimmerman.

Jeantel brings it out even more what Martin thought of Zimmerman by describing Zimmerman as some crazy white cracker, following him. Martin sure thought Zimmerman was depraved. He is the one being pursued by Zimmerman.

Furthermore there is no evidence Martin turned back to hunt down Zimmerman, but from Zimmerman. The incident began again when Martin was on his cell phone with Jeantel, not him sneaking up on Zimmerman. I don't think Martin circled back and just dropped his cell phone to attack Zimmerman. If he was doing that Zimmerman would have heard him talking on his cell phone with Jeantel. What the evidence favors is Zimmerman snuck up on Martin, because he was so obsessed with him getting away.

It even furthur indicates that, when he abruptly decided not to give his address to the 911 operater because he was afraid Martin would hear him. It indicates he thought Martin was still around and he was searching for him, with a loaded gun. It just matters if you believe Zimmerman's lies.

There are also other records of 911 calls, that Zimmerman had an obsession with catching certain persons. He placed Trayvon Mrtin into that same category, even though he knew nothing about Trayvon Martin.

What is ignored is Trayvon's Martin's rights to defend himself against Zimmerman, who afterall had a loaded gun. That is like the rapist blaming the victim. Whatever life threatening injuries, even though Zimmerman claims, did not exist. The only life threatening wound in the whole altercation was from a deadly weapon, which Zimmerman did not hesitate to use as his first and only method of self defense as indicated by Trayvon's injuries.

Just because Zimmerman had more injuries, does not mean Trayvon started the altercation or Zimmerman was ever fighting in self defense. All it means, is he was fighting to subdue Martin for resisting him. Trayvon's last words according to her, Was, "What are you following me for", and Zimmerman responding what are you doing around here.

She also claim the communication went weak, and she heard the sound of wet grass and Trayvon saying Get off me. I believe her. And if you believe her, that is evidence, George Zimmerman pursued Trayvon Martin, and never assumed the rights to self defense.

I also don't believe John Good could possibly see or heard anything in the details he gave, because of the weather conditions and the lighting. He is the only witness claiming such details. Even George Zimmerman claimed it was too Dark. He couldn't even see addresses or where Martin came from. This is the same witness claiming that he told both persons to stop. He also waited awhile until he thought they got serious. He never mentioned Zimmerman said anything to him, but he did hear Zimmerman calling for help and getting beat MMA style as suggested by Detective Serino. That is why I don't believe John Good. It is too in sinc with Zimmerman's claims of self defense and the theme from Detective Serino. If Zimmerman was getting beat to death by this kid, I'm pretty sure Good would have stepped in and stopped it. I don't think he would have let Martin beat Zimmerman to death while he stood there watching. Serino also dismissed himself from the case, after Zimmerman was charged.

Zimmerman also claims he only shot Martin after Martin went for his loaded gun. The only way Martin could have known Zimmerman's gun was loaded, is if Zimmerman was pointing it at Martin and threatening him with it first. There is too many holes in Zimmerman's story and some quite frankly is ridiculous.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

Too bad the jury didn't hear the "evidence withheld" SHRED Jul 2013 #1
This message was self-deleted by its author onehandle Jul 2013 #2
exactly.... I think beyond the prosecutor mistakes, the judges' inappropriately limited instruction. hlthe2b Jul 2013 #6
The judge is a Republican. You think she needed to be bullied? /nt Ash_F Jul 2013 #52
Yes, Judge Nelson Was In Over Her Head With This Case DallasNE Jul 2013 #60
I think that your speculative description fits the facts neohippie Jul 2013 #66
I concur with your description of the possible scenerio mazzarro Jul 2013 #71
There it is!!! This trial was just for show to quiet us darkies up. They wanted to Liberal_Stalwart71 Jul 2013 #87
sounds like they didn't even pay attention to evidence that was presented frylock Jul 2013 #18
no zimmerman DNA on Martin noiretextatique Jul 2013 #49
Sounds to me like you never were in a couret room daa Jul 2013 #62
wow. where to begin.. frylock Jul 2013 #69
Gun culture wrote the law. They are a proven threat to us all. nt onehandle Jul 2013 #3
Exactly! I wish that was what Carter said. nt SunSeeker Jul 2013 #74
Carter frontier00 Jul 2013 #4
Read the article before being so quick to criticize groundloop Jul 2013 #5
President Carter John2 Jul 2013 #7
Do you even know who his best friend was when he was going up? L0oniX Jul 2013 #11
? heaven05 Jul 2013 #37
Who put you in charge? L0oniX Jul 2013 #89
me heaven05 Jul 2013 #91
My take on the Jimmy Carter statement disndat Jul 2013 #16
Whatever, John2 Jul 2013 #19
One of the jurors was hispanic LearningCurve Jul 2013 #20
Hispanics John2 Jul 2013 #22
Doesn't give who a pass? LearningCurve Jul 2013 #55
no African American jurors? It's not right wordpix Jul 2013 #41
That is definitely an omission. Truth is, there was no one on that jury with the empathy and guts Hoyt Jul 2013 #68
The problem is a juror isn't supposed to base a verdict on empathy and guts titaniumsalute Jul 2013 #85
The former President (sadly) has it right. Maedhros Jul 2013 #56
If he had said that, I wouldn't be so bothered by his remarks. SunSeeker Jul 2013 #72
I agree that Carter's assessment is disturbing. Maedhros Jul 2013 #83
Manslaughter charges should have been filed in the first place. JDPriestly Jul 2013 #24
I have to disagree with my favorite President. There was enough evidence presented to kelliekat44 Jul 2013 #67
Completely agree with you! Kennah Jul 2013 #82
I'll wait and see what ProSense has to say about him. L0oniX Jul 2013 #13
This will end in tears. Safetykitten Jul 2013 #8
They may have made the correct legal decision but it wasn't the right decision. Kablooie Jul 2013 #9
Let's be clear John2 Jul 2013 #14
It is very common for juries to be split when they first begin their deliberations. The way the totodeinhere Jul 2013 #30
You're right Politicalboi Jul 2013 #59
I believe that's EXACTLY the point Carter was trying to make groundloop Jul 2013 #17
And all of a sudden Jimmy Carter is not such a DU darling anymore (nt) Nye Bevan Jul 2013 #10
Under the bus. We're gonna need a bigger bus soon. L0oniX Jul 2013 #12
You mean John2 Jul 2013 #15
One of the differences between Democrats and Republicans is that most Democrats, with some JDPriestly Jul 2013 #26
This message was self-deleted by its author devilgrrl Jul 2013 #28
I think the jury got it wrong and I think Carter got it wrong here The Second Stone Jul 2013 #21
He shouldn't have weighed in? KinMd Jul 2013 #23
We are not John2 Jul 2013 #32
we heaven05 Jul 2013 #44
That is my John2 Jul 2013 #25
Carter also angered some (not all) at DU with comments about Edward Snowden totodeinhere Jul 2013 #31
He didn't John2 Jul 2013 #35
There is a school of thought that Kennedy's primary challenge weakened Carter so much that he totodeinhere Jul 2013 #38
It was Carter's maladministration and turning his back on the grassroots Democratic Party byeya Jul 2013 #42
That's similar to what I have been saying for days. Beacool Jul 2013 #27
The prosecutors were under pressure from some quarters to charge as high as possible. totodeinhere Jul 2013 #33
When a case is as emotional and high profile as this one, Beacool Jul 2013 #36
Agreed. n/t totodeinhere Jul 2013 #39
Just how do you know that? John2 Jul 2013 #47
Read the statute. Beacool Jul 2013 #51
OK, John2 Jul 2013 #70
It was murder, John2 Jul 2013 #40
+1000 heaven05 Jul 2013 #46
murder...and jury nullification noiretextatique Jul 2013 #50
"the prosecution inadvertently set the standard so high" polichick Jul 2013 #29
There was no inadvertently, John2 Jul 2013 #43
Sick shit. God help America - even Floriduh. polichick Jul 2013 #45
John, The State's Attorneys in this case were never even close to it until appointed as 24601 Jul 2013 #75
I will simply say, i disagree... Deuce Jul 2013 #34
It would be nice if people actually took the time to read the article before commenting. nt Poll_Blind Jul 2013 #48
I respect Carter, but his history of "race relations" before 1976, weren't particularly exemplary. Hoyt Jul 2013 #53
". Sounds like he is regressing a bit." Not at all. cstanleytech Jul 2013 #63
The jurors held the power to do the right thing, they didn't. Hoyt Jul 2013 #64
Whats right isnt always legal and whats legal isnt always right. nt cstanleytech Jul 2013 #65
I know about broken clocks 99th_Monkey Jul 2013 #54
True! Fringe Jul 2013 #77
So glad I have never fawned over Carter. forestpath Jul 2013 #57
+ 1 SunSeeker Jul 2013 #73
I think he is wrong Skittles Jul 2013 #58
Carter's commenting on the technical aspects. toby jo Jul 2013 #61
This is the second time Carter has defended a racist.. Fringe Jul 2013 #76
He is defending the rule of law, not Zimmerman or racism - nt Gator_Matt Jul 2013 #78
Nope, he is defending racism. Fringe Jul 2013 #80
Is the other one Arafat? Pterodactyl Jul 2013 #79
Who was the first one? Karmadillo Jul 2013 #90
the law is written by wealthy sociopaths. Juries should follow their conscience yurbud Jul 2013 #81
I agree with Carter on this one. From a legal perspective WhoWoodaKnew Jul 2013 #84
I grew up in Georgia during the time when Carter was the governor and later Liberal_Stalwart71 Jul 2013 #86
That is so racist. Pterodactyl Jul 2013 #88
Latest Discussions»Latest Breaking News»Jimmy Carter: Jury made ‘...»Reply #70