What has this got to do with the killing of a 17yr old boy? You notice i havnt mentioned color? To me,whether he was black,white or green with yellow dots on,he didnt deserved to be shot down like a dog. As far as the other cases you mentioned,they to,whatever color they were,didnt deserve to die like that.
I believe 12 jurors is a fair amount,made up of people of who have attained an average educational standard. The clerk of the court should be available when they recess to make there decision,to clear up any discepances,mis-understanding,and keep them within the law.
Mine works! It is not a nice thought,but it does seem that he was going to be found "not guilty" from the minute the investigation started,or didnt start should i say.
Hello. With modern techniques,they could have determined the voice was not that of Zimmerman,and therefore that of the boy. Taken one step further,forensics could prove the voice was more than likely that of a boy of his age. The prosecution,in the investigation,could have played several recordings,of numerous people,including his,and those that knew him,may have identified his voice.Simaliar to a I.D parade.
Yes,he could have appealed.His lawyers could have torn the investigation,along with the forensics,apart.Okay,that could make there client look "even more guilty",if they highlighted certain things,because i believe it would prove his guilt,but it certainly could have been declared a mistrial due to the doubt thrown on the investigation as a hole. He would have then walked away free. Any good lawyer in a civil court,will pick up on these discrepencies,and he could be found guilty. In the Uk,in a civil court,"beyond reasonable doubt" doesnt have to be proven,only the probability that he is guilty.
Sadly,whether he is guilty or not,i dont believe that the investigation,forensics and court case has been dealt with fairly.I think its a shambles,and i believe he is guilty of manslaughter,as murder could be difflecult to prove.
Wearing baseball caps solely for "fashion". A man wearing any hat indoors. Adults wearing football shirts as everyday clothing Bad language in front of women Women using bad language People drinking out of bottles in a bar Wearing sports clothes for fashion,especially when they are obviously not sporty! Men walking around the streets with no tops on and a big beer belly on view. General lack of manners and respect for others. Loud mouths on mobile phones Driving whilst using mobile phones People who are constantly looking at there phones for no reason,when in company
In British law,to be guilty of murder,intent to kill or cause grevious bodily harm must be proved(attempt murder),nothing less. However,as in these circumstances,it is very difflecult to prove Zimmerman had that intent,when he followed the boy,or indeed when they confronted eachother. Hence,we would have laid the indictment of manslaughter along with the charge of murder,as manslaughter would be easier to prove.
In British law,he would have been charged with murder,and the case would have been based on the forensic evidence gathered. However,due to the fact that there are no independant witnesses,he would have proberly be found guilty of manslaughter. What concerns me is the lack of forensic evidence collected.In this modern day and age,with the skills and techniques available,this case could have been proven one way or the other.I feel the police and forensic officers have not really done there job.
Thats right.I am not talking about the right to carry a gun,thats the law in America,and i respect there laws. I am talking about the senseless killing of another person,who up until the point of the confrontation was doing nothing but walking home,being followed by an adult.What 17yr old wouldnt be frightened being followed by an adult stranger? I believe Zimmerman is guilty.
I believe he was one of these people that wanted to feel big and tough when in reality,according to what others have said,he was pathetic at marshal arts,and a bully as a bouncer. Joining the nieghbourhood watch was another attempt at feeling important. For someone of that mentality to have a gun is and has proved to be dangerous. I dont believe he was attacked by the young lad,i believe he instigated it,and i am sure if it had been investigated properly,that would come to light. Evidence from anyone,including the call operator,his friend on the mobile has been ignored.How convinient.
Thats exactly one of the points i was trying to make regarding the claim of self defence.With the skills he had,he could have dealt with the situation differantly.
Possibly the same as UK law. Previous convictions and anything simaliar cannot be bought up before a verdict,so not to influence any jury. They must only relate to the facts concerning the current case.
The love for a child is a differant kind of love that you would have for a partner. I understand your thoughts and if you feel this is the right thing for you and your daughter,i wish you the best of luck,and future happiness.
Hi. There is no independent witnesses to say the boy turned around and confronted Zimmerman,only Zimmermans word. If i believed someone was following me,i would certainly turn around and confront them. Wouldnt you? Again,only Zimmerman says he was attacked first,no independent witnesses. A civilian despatcher in the police force carries alot of responsibility,and are selected for there ability to communicate,keep calm in situations,and help the public.They are not just dragged of the street and given headphones. Of course they are going to tell him not to persue,thats what they are trained to do.They are not going to tell him to continue following and show no regard for your life,are they. This is not about gun law,the right to bear arms,its about whether the police,forensic scientists and legal system did ther job correctly,proffessionally and without bias. Whether he is guilty or not,the case should have been investigated and presented properly,then the doubts and debates that are taking place wouldnt be necerssary.
Forensics would be able to determine at was distance the 17yr old was shot,whether he grabbed the gun by trace elements of the victim on the gun.Possibly not enough for DNA,but evidence it was grabbed him ect. They would also be able to determine whether the wounds on Zimmermans head was self inflicted by the manner of the abrasions. Particles or other foriegn objects from the sidewalk,no matter how small would have been in the wound. If the 17yr old had smashed Zimmermans head on the floor so violently as claimed,the injuries would have been worse,and trace evidence would have been on the victim.It takes alot of power to get someone on the floor,and commit that act,and bearing in mind,Zimmerman was not your average man. Hence my suggestion it could be self inflicted against a wall ect, in an attempt to cover up what took place. Of course,one could suggest that if he had been found guilty,the powers that be,who accepted him as a nieghbourhood watch officer,would be sued up hill and down hill,and would open up the system to intense scrutiny,and be deemed as a failure. Just a thought.
RE: George Zimmerman NOT Guilty!!!! Agree or Disagree?
I totally agree.Work together to stop this sort of thing happening again.If they dont,there will be no winners,no justice,only losers and hatred.