What a fucking unmitigated cunt.

(December 5, 2019 at 7:56 pm)EgoDeath Wrote: So it's not enough that he got away with killing that kid... he also wants $100M.

Bold move. Welcome to America.

And, best case scenario for him, even if he wins, does he seriously think the Martin family even has $100 million to give?

Apparently, the issue at hand is that, to quote a CNN article on the lawsuit,

Quote:civil rights attorney Ben Crump helped to swap out a reluctant witness, Brittany Diamond Eugene, for her half-sister, Rachel Jeantel, and helped prepare her to deliver a script intended to land Zimmerman in prison for the 17-year-old's killing on February 26, 2012. Crump began representing Trayvon's parents starting February 28, 2012, the lawsuit says.

The suit accuses Trayvon's parents, prosecutors and state authorities of going along with the alleged ruse, and "are alleged to either have known about or should have known about the witness fraud, obstructed justice, or lied repeatedly under oath in order to cover up their knowledge of the witness fraud," a news release from Klayman said.

Klayman, who founded the conservative watchdog group Judicial Watch, has filed several lawsuits in the past, including a "birther" lawsuit that falsely claimed former President Barack Obama couldn't be president because he wasn't a natural-born citizen.

According to Zimmerman's lawsuit, Jeantel posed as Trayvon's girlfriend when it was Eugene who was dating Trayvon and on the phone with him during the encounter with Zimmerman, a former neighborhood watch captain.

Jeantel then delivered bogus testimony on the stand at Zimmerman's trial, the lawsuit alleges. The alleged conspirators went along with the plot, despite Jeantel being two years older, 5 inches taller and about 120 pounds heavier than Eugene, the lawsuit says.

The plan was made final in a 3-minute phone call between Crump and Eugene on March 31, 2012, the lawsuit says.

I doubt it's legitimate, but honestly, if this is accepted and this somehow leads to a mistrial, this could be a good chance for the DAs to actually charge him properly. I strongly suspect that the biggest reason the jury acquitted Zimmerman is because they overcharged him. There's a lower standard of proof for manslaughter (intentionally committing an act or acts that caused the death of another) than second degree murder (a killing carried out with hatred, ill will or spite, but is not premeditated), and due to the cops' failure to investigate it properly in a timely manner, the crime scene was compromised, and the defense was able to control (at least to a degree) the narrative that he could have been defending himself.

(December 5, 2019 at 9:25 pm)Rev. Rye Wrote:

(December 5, 2019 at 7:56 pm)EgoDeath Wrote: So it's not enough that he got away with killing that kid... he also wants $100M.

Bold move. Welcome to America.

And, best case scenario for him, even if he wins, does he seriously think the Martin family even has $100 million to give?

Apparently, the issue at hand is that, to quote a CNN article on the lawsuit,

Quote:civil rights attorney Ben Crump helped to swap out a reluctant witness, Brittany Diamond Eugene, for her half-sister, Rachel Jeantel, and helped prepare her to deliver a script intended to land Zimmerman in prison for the 17-year-old's killing on February 26, 2012. Crump began representing Trayvon's parents starting February 28, 2012, the lawsuit says.

The suit accuses Trayvon's parents, prosecutors and state authorities of going along with the alleged ruse, and "are alleged to either have known about or should have known about the witness fraud, obstructed justice, or lied repeatedly under oath in order to cover up their knowledge of the witness fraud," a news release from Klayman said.

Klayman, who founded the conservative watchdog group Judicial Watch, has filed several lawsuits in the past, including a "birther" lawsuit that falsely claimed former President Barack Obama couldn't be president because he wasn't a natural-born citizen.

According to Zimmerman's lawsuit, Jeantel posed as Trayvon's girlfriend when it was Eugene who was dating Trayvon and on the phone with him during the encounter with Zimmerman, a former neighborhood watch captain.

Jeantel then delivered bogus testimony on the stand at Zimmerman's trial, the lawsuit alleges. The alleged conspirators went along with the plot, despite Jeantel being two years older, 5 inches taller and about 120 pounds heavier than Eugene, the lawsuit says.

The plan was made final in a 3-minute phone call between Crump and Eugene on March 31, 2012, the lawsuit says.

I doubt it's legitimate, but honestly, if this is accepted and this somehow leads to a mistrial, this could be a good chance for the DAs to actually charge him properly. I strongly suspect that the biggest reason the jury acquitted Zimmerman is because they overcharged him. There's a lower standard of proof for manslaughter (intentionally committing an act or acts that caused the death of another) than second degree murder (a killing carried out with hatred, ill will or spite, but is not premeditated), and due to the cops' failure to investigate it properly in a timely manner, the crime scene was compromised, and the defense was able to control (at least to a degree) the narrative that he could have been defending himself.

---

---

I think it's a common trope, when people get away with terrible crimes, for people to cry, "The defendant was overcharged." I'm not sure how much merit there is to that idea, but I suppose it's a possibility. Not to mention, your personal definition of what second degree murder is doesn't quite match that of the Florida statute.

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

^This is how Florida defines second-degree murder, and I think this fits pretty damn well with even Zimmerman's version of events - save for the whole "self-defense" bit, which I understand changes the context of things quite a bit, but it's not like Martin had a gun out and Zimmerman shot a young man who was trying to kill him. He killed an unarmed young man with little to no provocation, and clear instructions from police dispatch to not pursue Martin when he began running.

And, of course, I'm not saying you disagree with any of this; I'm simply asking you to consider, is it really that Zimmerman was "overcharged," like the media loves to say any time something like this happens, or is it because of Florida's 'stand your ground' laws, which alleviates people of the responsibility and 'duty to retreat'...

I honestly wonder.

(December 5, 2019 at 10:44 pm)EgoDeath Wrote: I think it's a common trope, when people get away with terrible crimes, for people to cry, "The defendant was overcharged." I'm not sure how much merit there is to that idea, but I suppose it's a possibility. Not to mention, your personal definition of what second degree murder is doesn't quite match that of the Florida statute.

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

^This is how Florida defines second-degree murder, and I think this fits pretty damn well with even Zimmerman's version of events - save for the whole "self-defense" bit, which I understand changes the context of things quite a bit, but it's not like Martin had a gun out and Zimmerman shot a young man who was trying to kill him. He killed an unarmed young man with little to no provocation, and clear instructions from police dispatch to not pursue Martin when he began running.

And, of course, I'm not saying you disagree with any of this; I'm simply asking you to consider, is it really that Zimmerman was "overcharged," like the media loves to say any time something like this happens, or is it because of Florida's 'stand your ground' laws, which alleviates people of the responsibility and 'duty to retreat'...

I honestly wonder.

I've looked up the Florida Criminal Jury Instructions for 2012-2013. Here are the instructions for a second-degree murder charge. They have to prove that "There was an unlawful killing of (Trayvon Martin) by an act imminently dangerous to another and demonstrating a depraved mind [Defined as and act that "a person of ordinary judgment would know is reasonably certain to kill or do serious bodily injury to another, and is done from ill will, hatred, spite, or an evil intent, and is of such a nature that the act itself indicates an indifference to human life."] without regard for human life." And, unfortunately, Zimmerman was able to spin the events in such a way that it was really hard to prove "ill will, hatred, spite, or an evil intent."

And meanwhile, here's the instructions for manslaughter. And looking at the "Culpable Negligence" section really got me thinking:

Quote:I will now define “culpable negligence” for you. As I have said, every person has a duty to act reasonably toward others. If there is a violation of that duty, without any conscious intention to harm, that violation is negligence. But culpable negligence is more than a failure to use ordinary care toward others. In order for negligence to be culpable, it must be gross and flagrant. Culpable negligence is a course of conduct showing reckless disregard of human life, or of the safety of persons exposed to its dangerous effects, or such an entire want of care as to raise a presumption of a conscious indifference to consequences, or which shows wantonness or recklessness, or a grossly careless disregard for the safety and welfare of the public, or such an indifference to the rights of others as is equivalent to an intentional violation of such rights.

The negligent act or omission must have been committed with an utter disregard for the safety of others. Culpable negligence is consciously doing an act or following a course of conduct that the defendant must have known, or reasonably should have known, was likely to cause death or great bodily injury.

That 911 dispatcher (not quite the legally binding words of police, but still) telling him to not follow Trayvon Martin would seem to support that last sentence.

And, yes, there are many lawyers who would agree with my interpretation.

Of course, it may not be as easy as reducing the charges to manslaughter, especially given that, in the original trial, he was charged with Second Degree murder with a lesser included offense of manslaughter. And he got off on both charges.

Well, if it leads to him being convicted of the murder he committed or at least something, I'm down for it.

Shame that you can't lock people up for being attention-whoring twatwaffles.

Boru

Zimmerman's lawsuit is largely based on the allegation that false testimony was used against him - i.e. that the witness in court was not the girl on the phone - Martin's girlfriend - but her sister.

If true - it would certainly be a violation of Zimmerman' s rights.

But hey - if your cause is just - it's perfectly OK to fabricate evidence right?

Me? I dunno..

I wasn't there at the shooting.

I wasn't even on the jury.

But - it's sure amazing how many people "know" the "real story".

(December 6, 2019 at 2:31 pm)onlinebiker Wrote: Zimmerman's lawsuit is largely based on the allegation that false testimony was used against him - i.e. that the witness in court was not the girl on the phone - Martin's girlfriend - but her sister.

If true - it would certainly be a violation of Zimmerman' s rights.

But hey - if your cause is just - it's perfectly OK to fabricate evidence right?

Me? I dunno..

I wasn't there at the shooting.

I wasn't even on the jury.

But - it's sure amazing how many people "know" the "real story".

I've seen the evidence against him. I've heard the 911 calls he made where he was told to stay in his car. Instead, he stalked a boy in the dark and claimed self defense when he shot the boy who was just protecting himself from a thug following him around with a gun. It's all there if you want to peruse it. You could just continue to waste your time making smug admissions of your own ignorance, though.

As for fabricated evidence, obviously not okay. I tend to not care that much given that he, you know, shot and killed a boy.

(December 6, 2019 at 4:34 pm)Shell B Wrote:

(December 6, 2019 at 2:31 pm)onlinebiker Wrote: Zimmerman's lawsuit is largely based on the allegation that false testimony was used against him - i.e. that the witness in court was not the girl on the phone - Martin's girlfriend - but her sister.

If true - it would certainly be a violation of Zimmerman' s rights.

But hey - if your cause is just - it's perfectly OK to fabricate evidence right?

Me? I dunno..

I wasn't there at the shooting.

I wasn't even on the jury.

But - it's sure amazing how many people "know" the "real story".

I've seen the evidence against him. I've heard the 911 calls he made where he was told to stay in his car. Instead, he stalked a boy in the dark and claimed self defense when he shot the boy who was just protecting himself from a thug following him around with a gun. It's all there if you want to peruse it. You could just continue to waste your time making smug admissions of your own ignorance, though.

As for fabricated evidence, obviously not okay. I tend to not care that much given that he, you know, shot and killed a boy.

Shot and killed a boy who was on top of him, beating his ass........ Somehow that gets overlooked....


And - I had no idea you were on the jury.

They saw the evidence.

Everybody else just saw shit that got posted on the internet by anyone who thought they had a dog in the fight....

(December 6, 2019 at 12:00 am)Rev. Rye Wrote: I've looked up the Florida Criminal Jury Instructions for 2012-2013. Here are the instructions for a second-degree murder charge. They have to prove that "There was an unlawful killing of (Trayvon Martin) by an act imminently dangerous to another and demonstrating a depraved mind [Defined as  and act that "a person of ordinary judgment would know is reasonably certain to kill or do serious bodily injury to another, and is done from ill will, hatred, spite, or an evil intent, and is of such a nature that the act itself indicates an indifference to human life."] without regard for human life." And, unfortunately, Zimmerman was able to spin the events in such a way that it was really hard to prove "ill will, hatred, spite, or an evil intent."

And meanwhile, here's the instructions for manslaughter. And looking at the "Culpable Negligence" section really got me thinking:

Quote:I will now define “culpable negligence” for you. As I have said, every person has a duty to act reasonably toward others.  If there is a violation of that duty, without any conscious intention to harm, that violation is negligence.  But culpable negligence is more than a failure to use ordinary care toward others.  In order for negligence to be culpable, it must be gross and flagrant.  Culpable negligence is a course of conduct showing reckless disregard of human life, or of the safety of persons exposed to its dangerous effects, or such an entire want of care as to raise a presumption of a conscious indifference to consequences, or which shows wantonness or recklessness, or a grossly careless disregard for the safety and welfare of the public, or such an indifference to the rights of others as is equivalent to an intentional violation of such rights.

The negligent act or omission must have been committed with an utter disregard for the safety of others.  Culpable negligence is consciously doing an act or following a course of conduct that the defendant must have known, or reasonably should have known, was likely to cause death or great bodily injury.

That 911 dispatcher (not quite the legally binding words of police, but still) telling him to not follow Trayvon Martin would seem to support that last sentence.

And, yes, there are many lawyers who would agree with my interpretation.

Of course, it may not be as easy as reducing the charges to manslaughter, especially given that, in the original trial, he was charged with Second Degree murder with a lesser included offense of manslaughter. And he got off on both charges.

Yeah... so like I said, I think the Zimmerman case fits the definition for the Florida statute for 2nd degree murder. The prosecutors felt that way at the time and still feel that way.

I think the issue was the stand your ground law, which basically says, if we apply it to the Zimmerman case, that if Zimmerman felt threatened by Martin, he had every right to shoot him dead.

I used to be a proponent of the stand your ground laws... until I saw how it was used and abused by assholes who wanted to pick a fight and then use their gun on someone, i.e. bullies. Look up the Michael Drejka case. Now, should Markeis McGlockton have shoved Drejka, unprovoked? No. That mistake of trying to be a tough guy cost him his life. But does that give Drejka the right to shoot a man - just because he was shoved? No. Not in any world I live in.

Anyway... back to the main point... I think it's a trope we hear all too often, "They were overcharged!", and I'm just not convinced that there's any merit to the idea.

---

(December 6, 2019 at 5:45 pm)onlinebiker Wrote: Shot and killed a boy who was on top of him, beating his ass........ Somehow that gets overlooked....


And - I had no idea you were on the jury.

They saw the evidence.

Everybody else just saw shit that got posted on the internet by anyone who thought they had a dog in the fight....

Maybe if you get your ass beat by a 17 year old young man who you were following and harassing, unprovoked, you deserved an ass beating.
Does that make it okay to shoot someone, because you got beat up?