Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

The fucking Prosecutors managed to get Manslaughter on the options of possible convictions. FUCK. They knew they couldn't prove 2nd degree Murder because their prosecution totally backfired and continued to strengthen the Self Defense argument so now they move for Manslaughter so the jury goes "Oh, well he DID kill this kid, maybe he didn't murder him but it deserves some punishment, right? Manslaughter seems like a good punishment. Yeah let's go with that." Except that could still add up to decades in jail when he acted within his fucking rights.

That's what pisses me off, the man acted within his rights, he was getting beaten to a pulp for confronting someone in his neighborhood who he thought was doing wrong, and he thought "I might die tonight." as he was getting beaten. So he pulled his gun and killed him and now its like why the fuck do we even HAVE stand your ground laws if not for this EXACT reason?

What's been annoying about some of these comments is that they act like following someone is a crime, it's not. You know what IS a crime? Beating someone half to death because they may have felt threatened. You can feel as threatened as you want that doesn't give you the right to beat someone into the ground and nearly end their life because you wanted to be a hard gangsta. Zimmerman may have been a self righteous, paranoid wannabe cop but that is not illegal. It's not harmful AT ALL to just follow someone on a public street, it's not harmful or threatening to ask someone what they're up to especially if they think you might be up to something. What IS illegal is beating someone for doing so. He didn't even stop at the first punch, he kept going and going on his face. Who wouldn't use lethal force when their head is getting bashed into the ground?

At 7/12/13 01:07 AM, HollowedPumkinz wrote: The fucking Prosecutors managed to get Manslaughter on the options of possible convictions. FUCK.

Manslaughter is a mandatory lesser offense.

At 7/12/13 01:07 AM, HollowedPumkinz wrote: What's been annoying about some of these comments is that they act like following someone is a crime, it's not. You know what IS a crime? Beating someone half to death because they may have felt threatened. You can feel as threatened as you want that doesn't give you the right to beat someone into the ground and nearly end their life because you wanted to be a hard gangsta. Zimmerman may have been a self righteous, paranoid wannabe cop but that is not illegal. It's not harmful AT ALL to just follow someone on a public street, it's not harmful or threatening to ask someone what they're up to especially if they think you might be up to something. What IS illegal is beating someone for doing so. He didn't even stop at the first punch, he kept going and going on his face. Who wouldn't use lethal force when their head is getting bashed into the ground?

I stand corrected on the feeling threatened thing. If someone is feeling threatened it gives grounds to retaliate, but I'm talking actually threatened, like they're brandishing a weapon, taunting you, harassing you, and/or verbally assaulting you . However, I stand by that what Zimmerman was doing could hardly be considered "threatening". Following someone isn't threatening, its not like he was coaxing, aggravating, or verbally insulting him as he was following. Only confronting him so he didn't slip away, but this punishment does not fit the action, after all "threatened" is extremely relative.

I could feel "threatened" by the way you dress or a dirty look you gave me, does this give me the right to straddle you and beat you to a bloody pulp? Riddle me that.

At 7/12/13 01:28 AM, HollowedPumkinz wrote: I could feel "threatened" by the way you dress or a dirty look you gave me,

If you are following someone, that is an intentional act which may (likely) cause a reasonable feeling of apprehension in a person. Under normal circumstances, wearing clothes isn't directed at a person. You could reasonably feel threatened by someone giving you a dirty look, but I'd wager the odds of deescalation the situation or leaving it outright is much easier than, say, being followed on foot by a guy who was already following you in his truck at night in the rain.

does this give me the right to straddle you and beat you to a bloody pulp? Riddle me that.

Under Florida's SYG law, for instance, it can be if the situation escalates.

At 7/12/13 01:24 AM, Feoric wrote:

At 7/12/13 01:07 AM, HollowedPumkinz wrote: The fucking Prosecutors managed to get Manslaughter on the options of possible convictions. FUCK.

Manslaughter is a mandatory lesser offense.

It's not mandatory.

It has to be asked by the prosecution and then allowed by the Judge.

There's also a reason why many states don't allow it.

At 7/12/13 03:11 AM, Ceratisa wrote: Entice, since you haven't been paying attention to the case read up on it or shooooooooo.

We do have proof that he illegally acquired a gun, and was a street fighter. He was a criminal with multiple offenses. By the way bandwagon doesn't make pot any less illegal.

i happen to live in florida and there are a lot of black kids in the suburbs or shit projects as people like to call it. we also have a lot of hispanics. i find it interesting that out of all the racism cases that happen to reach national acclaim, it's between the two most popular minorities in florida.

At 7/12/13 03:11 AM, Ceratisa wrote: We do have proof that he illegally acquired a gun

I don't know why you didn't bring this up the first place since it's much more damning than anything else he did.

I'm not going to argue this point anymore, but I'll say that I'm inclined to agree with aviewaskewed here. Neither Trayvon's nor Zimmerman's character change what transpired between the two that night.

By the way bandwagon doesn't make pot any less illegal.

That wasn't my point at all. I brought it up because:
A. There's no way of knowing if Trayvon was under the influence of marijuana at the time he encountered Zimmerman.
B. If he was under the influence of marijuana it wouldn't predispose him to violence, making it irrelevant.

At 7/12/13 12:04 PM, Ceratisa wrote: Not true and the ME disagrees with your expert opinion.

Expert opinion.

"1.5 nanograms of THC were found as well as 7.3 nanograms of THC-COOH, a metabolite of THC that can stay in the system for weeks after cannabis has been smoked."

Not proof that he was high at the time.

Infact Marijuana has been proven to sometimes produce an unreasonable paranoia.
The ME disagrees with your claim that it didn't have an effect on him to be a bit clearer.

Of course it has an effect, but I completely disagree that marijuana produces violent behavior. Paranoia doesn't necessarily manifest itself as violence. I do agree that it could affect his judgement and if he was predisposed to violence it could have been a factor but there's not enough evidence to support that.

For the record, I do not think that Zimmerman was guilty. I disagree with many of the arguments that his supporters make which rely too much on attacking Trayvon's character.

At 7/12/13 03:27 AM, Memorize wrote: It's not mandatory.

You...didn't look through that pdf. Second degree (depraved mind) murder includes manslaughter.

It has to be asked by the prosecution and then allowed by the Judge.

What happened was the prosecution didn't list lesser charges, only second degree murder. He got the judge to change that to reflect the automatic charges not listed,

There's also a reason why many states don't allow it.

Many good reasons. But this is Florida.

and now.... we wait.

At 7/12/13 04:46 PM, Ceratisa wrote:

Jury asked for an inventory of the evidence I guess, not that there is much...

deliberations shouldn't last beyond 2 days, In my opinion. this wasn't exactly a long trial.

At 7/12/13 04:53 PM, Korriken wrote: deliberations shouldn't last beyond 2 days, In my opinion. this wasn't exactly a long trial.

It could very well last a week. The verdict isn't an easy call here.

At 7/12/13 04:46 PM, Ceratisa wrote: Jury asked for an inventory of the evidence I guess, not that there is much...

If there wasn't much then they wouldn't be asking for an inventory list of it all.

At 7/12/13 01:19 PM, Feoric wrote:

You...didn't look through that pdf. Second degree (depraved mind) murder includes manslaughter.

The judge still has to allow it. It's not automatic.

Many good reasons. But this is Florida.

That excuse didn't seem to fly for you when people pointed out that following Treyvon wasn't "illegal."

At 7/12/13 05:22 PM, Feoric wrote:

If there wasn't much then they wouldn't be asking for an inventory list of it all.

Might be to make sure they have everything before them before they deliberate.

anyone know if deliberations happen over the weekend or will they have the weekend off?

At 7/12/13 06:05 PM, Ceratisa wrote:

recess until 9:00 am? does that mean 9:00 am saturday

it might, but that would mean the court would be open on saturday and I don't recall courts being open on saturday.

looks like deliberations will happen through the weekend.

thinking on it, given how much is wrong with this trial, between prosecution withholding evidence until a whistleblower exposed the wrongdoing (and got fired for it), the judge not allowing evidence to be presented in court, as well as the judge ignoring the defense and walking about of the courtroom in a very unprofessional manner, a guilty verdict probably won't stick at all.

and after this media circus, good lucking finding ANYONE who doesn't already have an opinion on the case.

At 7/13/13 07:40 PM, RydiaLockheart wrote: The jury has asked the judge to clarify manslaughter.

My guess (and this is only a guess) is they have taken second-degree murder off the table.

that's what most everyone is thinking. makes sense too, there would be no need to know what manslaughter is if he's guilty of murder.

Something I was thinking about: Again, I'm stupid when it comes to legal affairs, but the original charge was second-degree murder. They added manslaughter towards the end of the trial. Could that be considered double jeopardy?

no, in florida manslaughter is always tacked on as a lesser offense to murder. double jeopardy is when a person is tried again for the same offense, typically after being found innocent, or if found guilty and served their sentence.

example, a man steals a wad of cash from a register and ends up in prison for a couple of years. He cannot be put on trial for the offense a second time.

This is done to prevent a corrupt judicial system to keep sending a person to prison over and over again for the same crime.

It also prevents a corrupt judicial system from trying a person over and over again until they get the conviction they want.

At 7/13/13 08:10 PM, Korriken wrote:

At 7/13/13 07:40 PM, RydiaLockheart wrote:

Something I was thinking about: Again, I'm stupid when it comes to legal affairs, but the original charge was second-degree murder. They added manslaughter towards the end of the trial. Could that be considered double jeopardy?

no, in florida manslaughter is always tacked on as a lesser offense to murder. double jeopardy is when a person is tried again for the same offense, typically after being found innocent, or if found guilty and served their sentence.

I would consider it a lighter form of double jeopardy.

It's basically the prosecution's way of saying "We couldn't nail you on what we did charge you, so we're tacking on this extra bit which the defense didn't spend their time defending against."

It allows prosecutors to over-charge to make headlines while making it easier to get a lesser conviction since it's allowing the jury to compromise rather than base it on evidence.

As if to say "Well, they couldn't prove 2nd degree, but we can't just let him go free."

At 7/13/13 08:48 PM, Memorize wrote:

I would consider it a lighter form of double jeopardy.

as would many, but it is what it is.

It's basically the prosecution's way of saying "We couldn't nail you on what we did charge you, so we're tacking on this extra bit which the defense didn't spend their time defending against."

well, truth be told, they've been defending against this too by claiming self defense. if the jury agrees that it's self defense, the manslaughter charge won't stick either.

It allows prosecutors to over-charge to make headlines while making it easier to get a lesser conviction since it's allowing the jury to compromise rather than base it on evidence.

well, I wouldn't say that, since the conviction still must be base on evidence.

As if to say "Well, they couldn't prove 2nd degree, but we can't just let him go free."

Given the other charges the prosecutor wanted tacked on, he was desperate for something. He knew he would lose if it was just murder 2. and it would appear he has lost the case for murder 2.

Now, if the jury decides that Zimmerman didn't shoot Martin in self defense, but didn't do so just because he wanted to kill someone, manslaughter is the other option.