Zimmerman to auction gun used to kill Martin

[*Nately120*]

(05-15-2016, 04:06 PM)StLucieBengal Wrote: So 1 juror says he was guilty?   Why didn't she fight more?  Sounds more like she is grandstanding to get a book deal.  

As for Florida.   We encourage everyone to carry.    No idea why TM wasn't.... That's his business.    I don't know his specifics.    But I do know that most homes down here have an extensive collection of firearms.   You may not like this but I assume you are not from or live here.  

I'm not well versed on Florida law, but can a minor legally carry a concealed weapon?  

[GMDino]

(05-15-2016, 01:17 PM)StLucieBengal Wrote: Nearly everyone carries a gun down here . That's not that unique to anyone who lives in Florida...  


And a jury of peers found him innocent and as bfine has said before .... They had more access to details of the case than anyone on this message board.    

No.  He was found not guilty.

http://www.cnn.com/2013/07/14/us/zimmerman-why-this-verdict/

Quote:Five key issues factored into George Zimmerman's acquittal Saturday in last year's shooting death of 17-year-old Trayvon Martin:


1. The charges filed
Did the prosecution make a mistake in filing a second-degree murder charge against Zimmerman?

"I think the problem was they overcharged it in the very beginning," said Holly Hughes, a criminal defense lawyer who was not on Zimmerman's legal team. Had prosecutors started with the manslaughter charge, the outcome might have been different, she told CNN.

But Florida State Attorney Angela Corey said the allegations "fit the bill" for the second-degree murder charge.


2. The evidence presented



Zimmerman's account of what happened the night of the shooting was a central part of the trial. He was the only living person who witnessed the entire incident, and there wasn't much physical evidence for either team to fall back on.

Various adverse conditions played into the initial investigation that night: A dark, rainy scene isn't ideal for a homicide investigation, says HLN law enforcement analyst Mike Brooks.



3. The teen who spoke to Martin


She was on the phone with Martin moments before he was shot and was considered a key prosecution witness. But Rachel Jeantel initially resisted coming forward.


"She did not want to get involved in this in no way possible," Martin family attorney Benjamin Crump told reporters Saturday.



During two days of testimony that was at times tense and combative, Jeantel described her conversation with Martin.


When defense attorney Don West challenged her story, suggesting Martin attacked Zimmerman, she responded: "That's ********."



Jeantel testified that Martin told her he was being chased by a "creepy-a** cracker."

"This was a disaster," criminal defense lawyer Mark Geragos told CNN's Anderson Cooper the day Jeantel testified. "This was the star witness, the star witness. The wheels came off and it was a train wreck. And there's no other -- there's no way to soft-pedal it."



4. The voice on the call


The mothers of Zimmerman and Martin each testified that screams for help heard on a 911 call the night of the shooting were those of her son.


Whose voice was heard on the call was considered key for both the prosecution and defense in proving who was responsible for the shooting. If the screams were Martin's, as the prosecution contended, Zimmerman was the aggressor. If the screams were Zimmerman's, as the defense said, Martin was the aggressor.


On July 5, in a packed courtroom, the prosecution played the recording for Martin's mother, Sybrina Fulton.

When asked if she recognized the voice, Fulton said it belonged to "Trayvon Benjamin Martin."


Hours later, the defense called Gladys Zimmerman to the stand, where she testified the voice screaming for help belonged to her son.

"I know because he's my son," she said.



5. Testimony


The lead detective in the case, Chris Serino, was called to the stand by the prosecution.


Serino told the court that he believed Zimmerman exaggerated the number of times he was hit that night but didn't feel any
"active deception."


"Either he was telling the truth or he was a complete pathological liar," he testified.

[GMDino]

(05-15-2016, 03:04 PM)StLucieBengal Wrote: I would find out why they are following me.   If he said he was neighborhood watch I would ask his name and then request the police be called.  

What's the word I'm look for here....?

Oh yeah.  Bullshit.

You have posted, repeatedly, about fighting your own fights, defending your self, not relying on the government, self-defense, etc.

And you would ask his name and then request the police be called?

Quit now.

[Belsnickel]

(05-15-2016, 05:29 PM)Nately120 Wrote: I'm not well versed on Florida law, but can a minor legally carry a concealed weapon?  

I believe federal minimum for a handgun is 21.

[*bfine32*]

(05-15-2016, 01:17 PM)StLucieBengal Wrote: And a jury of peers found him innocent  

(05-15-2016, 06:48 PM)GMDino Wrote: No.  He was found not guilty.

For realz?

[GMDino]

(05-15-2016, 07:17 PM)bfine32 Wrote: For realz?

Innocent means that you did not commit the crime.

Not Guilty means that there was not enough evidence to determine that you did commit the crime.

[*bfine32*]

(05-15-2016, 07:23 PM)GMDino Wrote:

Innocent means that you did not commit the crime.

Not Guilty means that there was not enough evidence to determine that you did commit the crime.

Tee  Hee

Please continue.

[GMDino]

(05-15-2016, 07:37 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Tee  Hee

Please continue.

Wait...you seriously didn't know that?

https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/acquittal

Quote:Acquittal

Definition

At the end of a criminal trial, a finding by a judge or jury that a defendant is not guilty. An acquittal signifies that a prosecutor failed to prove his or her case beyond a reasonable doubt, not that a defendant is innocent. Thus, a person may be acquitted of a crime but found civilly liable in a civil case regarding that same crime, e.g. O.J. Simpson, because civil cases have a lower burden of proof than criminal cases.

[*bfine32*]

(05-15-2016, 07:43 PM)GMDino Wrote: Wait...you seriously didn't know that?

https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/acquittal

So you are saying juries are given 3 options: Guilty, Not guilty, or Innocent?

Or are you trying to point to semantics to make a feeble point?

Often not guilty and innocent are terms that are interchanged; although not-guilty is the proper term. We cannot determine if anyone is innocent of a crime.

Wait...you seriously didn't know that?

[GMDino]

(05-15-2016, 07:52 PM)bfine32 Wrote: So you are saying juries are given 3 options: Guilty, Not guilty, or Innocent?

Or are you trying to point to semantics to make a feeble point?

Often not guilty and innocent are terms that are interchanged; although not-guilty is the proper term. We cannot determine if anyone is innocent of a crime.

Wait...you seriously didn't know that?

I'm saying Lucy was wrong.  And you are defending him (again) by pointing to that thing you say someone else is doing.

GZ was not found innocent by a jury of his peers.

You didn't know that.  Carry on....

(Couple nice personal attacks in there...keep up the solid posts!)

[GMDino]

Here you go Larry...in case you want to speak for Lucy some more:

This is a fine distinction, but it is one worth noting.

Quote:Here's how and why:
In the technical terms of many legal systems, the only possible verdicts are guilty and not guilty. If a judge or jury find a defendant guilty, then that person or group of people has decided that the enough presented at trial was enough to prove the defendant's guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. If the judge or jury are not convinced beyond a reasonable doubt, then they must deliver a verdict of not guilty. This does not mean that the defendant is innocent. It means only that the prosecution did not convince the judge or jury beyond a reasonable doubt.


So why do people say a person was found innocent? In many judicial systems, anyway, once you're found not guilty of a crime, you can't be tried again for that same crime. Under the law (in America's case the Fifth Amendment), you are protected against double jeopardy. So, once you're found not guilty, you're as good as innocent, at least in the eyes of the law.

"As good as innocent" because you can't be tried for that same crime again.

Not found "innocent"

Of course, like OJ they can still be tried in a civil court.  

[*bfine32*]

(05-15-2016, 07:55 PM)GMDino Wrote: I'm saying Lucy was wrong. 

I know how important that is to you. Disregard the whole intent of the message to point out that he used the incorrect term (even though they are often interchanged) and is therefore "wrong".

Regardless what you and others try to point to: "one juror had doubts", "wasn't found innocent, only not guilty", etc...
George Zimmerman was to have not unjustly killed Trayvon Martin. I'm not even sure there was a civil trial (I think the parent may have settled with the housing development). I do know the DOJ decided not to pursue it.

So you and others are just making yourselves look petty. This is not to suggest I am not amused by it or that any of you should cease.

Please continue.

[StLucieBengal]

So you are playing word games to make some half assed point?

Relax counselor go back to watching (insert court drama) ... Everyone knew what I was saying. You are just being difficult and childish.

[GMDino]

(05-15-2016, 08:06 PM)bfine32 Wrote: I know how important that is to you. Disregard the whole intent of the message to point out that he used the incorrect term (even though they are often interchanged) and is therefore "wrong".

Regardless what you and others try to point to: "one juror had doubts", "wasn't found innocent, only not guilty", etc...
George Zimmerman was to have not unjustly killed Trayvon Martin. I'm not even sure there was a civil trial (I think the parent may have settled with the housing development). I do know the DOJ decided not to pursue it.

So you and others are just making yourselves look petty. This is not to suggest I am not amused by it or that any of you should cease.

Please continue.

Just to avoid your personal (snarky) attacks, Lucy meant "innocent".  He has said, repeatedly, that Zimmerman was more than justified in what he did and was guilty of no crime.

I simply pointed out his terminology was wrong (and misleading).

Why you have to defend him (Lucy) is curious but not surprising.

Please return to the topic of the thread or at least talking about Zimmerman being not guilty.  Thank you.

[StLucieBengal]

(05-15-2016, 06:50 PM)GMDino Wrote: What's the word I'm look for here....?

Oh yeah.  Bullshit.

You have posted, repeatedly, about fighting your own fights, defending your self, not relying on the government, self-defense, etc.

And you would ask his name and then request the police be called?

Quit now.

If I was stopped by my neighborhood watch.   And for whatever reason I didn't know them.... Plus they had a gun.  I would tell them if they have a problem with me they can call the police.    The last thing j would do is get into a fight with them and escalate the situation.    Offerring for them to call the police is to ease their concerns not mine.    Since they have the gun.  


It's a ridiculous scenario because where I live we know the personnel here....   

[*Nately120*]

(05-15-2016, 08:24 PM)StLucieBengal Wrote: If I was stopped by my neighborhood watch.   And for whatever reason I didn't know them.... Plus they had a gun.  I would tell them if they have a problem with me they can call the police.    The last thing j would do is get into a fight with them and escalate the situation.    Offerring for them to call the police is to ease their concerns not mine.    Since they have the gun.  


It's a ridiculous scenario because where I live we know the personnel here....   

I can't say I know the details of this case, but are we sure TM knew GZ had a gun before he decided to start a fight with him?  Your scenario involves you knowing he has a gun and then standing around and waiting for the police to show up...eventually. Ida know, I don't see you cowing to the puffed-up demands of a self-appointed rent a cop, but who knows.

[StLucieBengal]

(05-15-2016, 08:54 PM)Nately120 Wrote: I can't say I know the details of this case, but are we sure TM knew GZ had a gun before he decided to start a fight with him?  Your scenario involves you knowing he has a gun and then standing around and waiting for the police to show up...eventually.  Ida know, I don't see you cowing to the puffed-up demands of a self-appointed rent a cop, but who knows.

It's not my scenario .  Someone tried to put me into a TM scenario to evidently make sure I made the same stupid mistake TM made .  

[*Nately120*]

(05-15-2016, 08:59 PM)StLucieBengal Wrote: It's not my scenario .  Someone tried to put me into a TM scenario to evidently make sure I made the same stupid mistake TM made .  

Hmm, well I don't see you bowing down to some mouthy Hispanic rent-a-cop lite, but I don't know you that well!

[StLucieBengal]

(05-15-2016, 09:06 PM)Nately120 Wrote: Hmm, well I don't see you bowing down to some mouthy Hispanic rent-a-cop lite, but I don't know you that well!

I don't have time to deal with nonsense.   I would probably just give him my business card if he said he was neighborhood watch.   Him telling me he is neighborhood watch would just prove he wasn't there to rob me so there is no need for concern.  

[*Nately120*]

(05-15-2016, 09:09 PM)StLucieBengal Wrote: I don't have time to deal with nonsense.   I would probably just give him my business card if he said he was neighborhood watch.   Him telling me he is neighborhood watch would just prove he wasn't there to rob me so there is no need for concern.  

I realize it's difficult to imagine yourself in TM's exact situation, but I really doubt walking away or handing the guy a business card and telling him you have better things to do is going to be acceptable in his mind.