• Changing RCF's index page, please click on "Forums" to access the forums.

Trayvon Martin 911 Call From Neighbors and Zimmerman (Audio)

Do Not Sell My Personal Information
What a fucking prick.
GeraldoTweets.png
 
Just throwing my two cents worth of legal knowledge here, but if one were to decide that Zimmerman was not acting in self-defense, it becomes very difficult to then say he is only guilty of man-slaughter. The fact that he actually shot a gun at a person immediately goes towards an intent to kill.

It's hard, really hard, for a person to claim that they shot another person without an intent to actually kill him. People do claim it, but jurys don't normally buy it.

What the tapes show, and what his history shows, is that yes, he might have set out with only the intent to apprehend, but that simply goes to disproving pre-meditiation on his part and seperates this case from a murder 1 case. But normally, as soon as someone actually shoots a gun at a person (assuming he actually meant to shoot the gun and it didn't accidently go off) you have a strong case for second degree murder so long as self-defense doesn't save him.

Now, there are things such as provocation that can mitigate a murder charge down to manslaughter, but again, in order for that to happen someone needs to show some evidence that it was Martin, not Zimmerman who acted provocatively first, and then Zimmerman took it a step to far beyond that.

As it stands, if Zimmerman is the one who approached Martin and escalated the incident and then shot him, that's a solid murder 2 case.
 
Lee said:
No, murder is a different intent. At the end of the day what Zimmerman did was manslaughter. He didnt set out that day to kill the kid. Its one of the most misused legal terms. The only way it would be murder if the defense could prove his intent was to shoot him in cold blood or Zimmerman was in the act of committing a felony (beyond the killing, ie robbing a liquor store, this is known as felony murder). I doubt there is even a murder charge. The 911 tape proves his intent, the fact he was on watch proves his intent, the fact he followed to see what he was up to proves his intent.

Think of it this way. If you kill a guy drinking and driving, you are charged with a form of manslaughter. Your stupid act of getting behind the wheel might have been premeditated, (ie having a gun when you are a voluntary neighborhood watch) , but your intent wasnt to kill someone.

I wish the asshat could be charged with murder, but it would be overcharging him and if the manslaughter charge isnt on the table, the jury would be forced to acquit. (although the judge would most likely throw out the murder charge before the trial even began)
Click to expand...

You've got manslaughter and second degree murder mixed up.

Like I said in my above post, it's nearly impossible to claim that you shot at a person, on purpose, and didn't intend to kill them. No, there may have been no planning to actually kill him (pre-meditiation), but the actual use of a gun and the purposeful firing of that gun at another human being goes right towards, and is pretty hard to explain away, an intent to purposefully kill. Which would make this a second-degree murder.

Just to give a real life example. Recently in Southern Ohio a woman was convicted of 2nd degree murder (in this state it's simply called murder, while 1st degree murder is called aggravated murder). She killed her husband at their home. Her husband was extremely abusive to her and their children, to the extent that she actually got them out and moved in with her family (I think it was her mother). However, after talking to her husband one day, he said that he was going to kill their children on their upcoming birthday . So, the day before their birthday, she goes to their house (fully believing the husband would follow through) and tries to talk him out of it. However, she also took with her two loaded hand-guns. Ultimately, the husband never backed down from his threat and she proceeded to shoot him and kill him.

Now, she fully believed (even if unreasonable, like Zimmerman) that her husband was a threat. So, like Zimmerman, she tried to claim self-defense (in this case defense of a third person), but in order for that claim to hold up the threat must be imminent and actual. The threat in this case wasn't imminent and so her self-defense claim failed. Furthermore, the defense asked for a lesser charge of man-slaughter, but that also was denied by the jury, because the simply act of firing a gun at another human being goes towards an intent to kill. However, the jury did buy the defense's argument that even if she did have an intent to kill, she did not plan/pre-meditate that incident and instead her initial intent was to only try to talk the husband out of killing their children. The jury DID buy that, and therefore found her not guilty of aggravated muder, but guilty of murder (2nd degree murder).

Point of that story is this, it's really hard to explain to someone that you shot at a person with no intent to actually kill them. Her man-slaughter defense rested on the notion that her husband had provoked the situation with his threat. Likewise, Zimmerman's will rest on the notion that Martin provoked the situation by confronting him/attacking him/whatever, but it will ultimately have very little to do with intent, because intent becomes obvious the moment you pull the trigger of a gun aimed at another person.

This isn't like driving drunk where you hit someone with your car. You had NO INTENT to hit that person, let alone kill them. Moreover, it's not even like an incident where you hit someone over the head with a bottle in the middle of a fight, and they end up dying from it. Your intent was to hurt them, but probably not to kill them. When you shoot someone with a gun, it almost becomes impossible to say "Didn't mean to kill, only meant to hurt." Simply doesn't work very often.
 
Very nice argument Rich.. Nicely summed up posts.
 
Maximus said:
This should help things...

louis-farrakhan1.png
Click to expand...

At a time where most people are moving towards solidarity (heard Hannity today railing against racial profiling, was impressed) this clown-fuck comes out of the woodwork.
 
I'm annoyed that this Zimmerman is being portrayed as a "white," guy when he's very visibly not one. He's half-Hispanic.
 
Jigo_oi said:
I'm annoyed that this Zimmerman is being portrayed as a "white," guy when he's very visibly not one. He's half-Hispanic.
Click to expand...

Yeah, it's silly, but his name is "Zimmerman" so people will naturally portray him as "White." It also makes for a more juicy story. With that said though, there are many "Hispanics" and Latinos that are in fact "White," ethnically, culturally, and genetically. The term Hispanic/Latino, in my opinion, is next to meaningless. I've known more than a few Latinos (from Puerto Ricans to Filipinos, both of Spanish decent) that deliberately went out of their way to portray themselves as what would traditionally be considered a White American.

So we don't know what heritage this guy claims. Hell for all we know on his police report he could have identified himself as "White." Many people do (including two of my direct relatives).
 
Geraldo is a fucking twat. Im sorry that my first thought when I see a black kid wearing a hoodie isnt that the dude is up to something. All I see is a guy wearing a hoodie. I hope Zimmerman rots.
 
Jigo_oi said:
I'm annoyed that this Zimmerman is being portrayed as a "white," guy when he's very visibly not one. He's half-Hispanic.
Click to expand...

He's white, just like our President... ;)
 
The Man Called X said:
http://www.examiner.com/charleston-...und-being-punched-when-he-shot-trayvon-martin

THE OTHER SIDE!!!! OH NOES!
Click to expand...

1. The witness reports that George Zimmerman was on the ground and Trayvon is on top of him punching him.
2. The witness says that George Zimmerman was screaming and yelling for help.
3. Police arrive and find Zimmerman bleeding on his face and the back of his head. He also has had grass stains on his back. All this confirms the story told by Zimmerman and the witness.
4. Police play the 911 tape for Trayvon Martin's father, who tells police that the voice screaming is not the voice of his son.
Click to expand...

If that's actually true, it could explain why the police hadn't pressed charges right off the bat.
 
And whatever else may have happened, I think it's a little unfair to just qualify Zimmerman as a racist? Unless I missed something, that audio tape sure as hell sounded like "punk" to me, not coon. And if that's all there is to go on, I just don't think it's fair to declare he's a racist.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Rubber Rim Job Podcast Video

Episode 3-14: "Time for Playoff Vengeance on Mickey"

Rubber Rim Job Podcast Spotify

Episode 3:14: " Time for Playoff Vengeance on Mickey."
Top