Started By
Message
re: Football and race relations in the south
Posted on 2/16/14 at 2:25 pm to Bama Bird
Posted on 2/16/14 at 2:25 pm to Bama Bird
quote:So premeditation is defined by a specific time period? The decision to kill someone can only take a second
1st degree murder is premeditated. Merely possessing and carrying a gun doesn't make it premeditated.
1
Posted on 2/16/14 at 2:27 pm to genro
quote:
some witnesses that all corraborated Zimm's story.
quote:
Patently false.
What witness testimony went against Zimmerman's testimony?
Educate me.
Posted on 2/16/14 at 2:27 pm to MontyFranklyn
If you're going to define it like that, I don't know why we even have 2nd degree murder. Every murder would be premeditated. Maybe a lawyer can get in here and explain it because I'm just going on my own interpretation.
Posted on 2/16/14 at 2:29 pm to Bama Bird
quote:That is my logic behind it and I still can't understand 2nd degree either. I understand manslaughter but not 2nd degree because of the time situation
If you're going to define it like that, I don't know why we even have 2nd degree murder. Every murder would be premeditated. Maybe a lawyer can get in here and explain it because I'm just going on my own interpretation.
Posted on 2/16/14 at 2:52 pm to MontyFranklyn
State laws vary on the exact definition of premeditated murder, but generally, it's defined as taking time to rationally consider committing a murder, thus increasing the possibility of not being caught.
It's prosecuted differently. You'll never get a murder 1 conviction in a trial like Dunn's. Any defense lawyer worth his salt can beat that.
It's prosecuted differently. You'll never get a murder 1 conviction in a trial like Dunn's. Any defense lawyer worth his salt can beat that.
This post was edited on 2/16/14 at 2:54 pm
Posted on 2/16/14 at 2:56 pm to wadewilson
quote:But pulling out your firearm and firing it is all the ration you need, especially when it couldn't be proven that the kids had a gun
State laws vary on the exact definition of premeditated murder, but generally, it's defined as taking time to rationally consider committing a murder, thus increasing the possibility of not being caught.
It's prosecuted differently. You'll never get a murder 1 conviction in a trial like Dunn's. Any defense lawyer worth his salt can beat that.
Posted on 2/16/14 at 2:57 pm to genro
quote:
Pretty fricked up you can KILL an unarmed person with a gun - who's smaller than you - and call it self defense.
The bottom line is that the evidence wasn't sufficient for a conviction.
We can't go around finding people guilty of something just to satisfy our desire for justice. Even guilty men should get off if the evidence is insufficient to convict them.
The prosecution was HEAVILY relying on the emotional appeal of an unarmed kid killed by a scary man with a gun, but there was very little substance to their case. No matter how "bad" it may seem to find him not guilty, it was the only thing the jury could do.
This post was edited on 2/16/14 at 3:00 pm
Posted on 2/16/14 at 2:58 pm to MontyFranklyn
quote:Who?
and the kid Dunn
Posted on 2/16/14 at 2:59 pm to MontyFranklyn
No, it's really not. For premeditated, he'd really have to do something like, follow them down the road for a couple miles, if then.
If just pulling out a weapon is enough for premeditated, then every firearm related death in US history, including self defense cases, could fall under murder 1.
If just pulling out a weapon is enough for premeditated, then every firearm related death in US history, including self defense cases, could fall under murder 1.
Posted on 2/16/14 at 3:00 pm to Roger Klarvin
quote:So if you commit a crime efficiently enough you should get off? Is that Texas logic?
Even guilty men should get off if the evidence is insufficient to convict them.
Posted on 2/16/14 at 3:00 pm to Roger Klarvin
quote:
The bottom line is that the evidence wasn't sufficient for a conviction.
We can't go around finding people guilty of something just to satisfy our desire for justice. Even guilty men should get off if the evidence is insufficient to convict them.
The prosecution was HEAVILY relying on the emotional appeal of an unarmed kid killed by a scary man with a gun, but there was very little substance to their case. No matter how "bad" it may seem to find him not guilty, it was the only thing the jury could do.
Absolutely. Lady justice is blind.
Posted on 2/16/14 at 3:02 pm to MontyFranklyn
quote:
So if you commit a crime efficiently enough you should get off? Is that Texas logic?
In our country, not just Texas, it's the burden of the prosecution to prove guilt, not the burden of the accused to prove innocence.
We already have enough people in jail. No sense in throwing more in just to satisfy our base needs for retribution.
Posted on 2/16/14 at 3:03 pm to wadewilson
quote:In this case his defense was he thought he saw a gun, but that wasn't proven and his gf testified he never said anything about them having a gun to her. So if it wasn't self defense it had to be murder
No, it's really not. For premeditated, he'd really have to do something like, follow them down the road for a couple miles, if then.
If just pulling out a weapon is enough for premeditated, then every firearm related death in US history, including self defense cases, could fall under murder 1.
Posted on 2/16/14 at 3:04 pm to MontyFranklyn
quote:
So if you commit a crime efficiently enough you should get off?
Yes, because in such a case the evidence would be insufficient for a conviction.
Our justice system (in theory anyway) is designed to protect the innocent. The burden of proof is entirely on the prosecution as it should be. The result will ultimately be some guilty people getting off as well. It is better for 100 guilty men to go free than even 1 innocent man be convicted, though.
This post was edited on 2/16/14 at 3:05 pm
Posted on 2/16/14 at 3:05 pm to wadewilson
quote:But that sets a slippery slope and weighs down the scales of justice to one side. So basically what you are saying is just don't get caught because we don't need to put more people in jail.
In our country, not just Texas, it's the burden of the prosecution to prove guilt, not the burden of the accused to prove innocence.
We already have enough people in jail. No sense in throwing more in just to satisfy our base needs for retribution.
Posted on 2/16/14 at 3:06 pm to MontyFranklyn
quote:
So if it wasn't self defense it had to be murder
That's not how that works.
Posted on 2/16/14 at 3:07 pm to MontyFranklyn
quote:
But that sets a slippery slope and weighs down the scales of justice to one side. So basically what you are saying is just don't get caught because we don't need to put more people in jail.
So you're fine convicting people on insufficient evidence, and putting potentially innocent people in jail for long periods of time, just to satisfy your emotional desire for justice?
Yikes
Posted on 2/16/14 at 3:11 pm to MontyFranklyn
quote:
In this case his defense was he thought he saw a gun, but that wasn't proven and his gf testified he never said anything about them having a gun to her. So if it wasn't self defense it had to be murder
You seem to have the idea that circumstances, statements, and facts are easily proven as true or false in homicide cases. This isn't the case. Rarely is there a completely black or white case. Maybe he said it to her, maybe he didn't. It's one person's word against another's.
Point is, there wasn't sufficient evidence to convict Dunn of murder 2, much less murder 1. Regardless, he was convicted of 3 counts of attempted homicide with a weapon. In Florida, that's a minimum sentence of 20 years per count. He's also looking at a 4th conviction. The guy is gonna die in prison. That's a home run for the prosecutor.
Posted on 2/16/14 at 3:12 pm to Roger Klarvin
quote:Excluding all other situations and focusing on this case alone there is not a chance of an innocent person being convicted. He killed an unarmed teen, therefore he should be punished justly
So you're fine convicting people on insufficient evidence, and putting potentially innocent people in jail for long periods of time, just to satisfy your emotional desire for justice?
Yikes
Posted on 2/16/14 at 3:12 pm to MontyFranklyn
quote:
But that sets a slippery slope and weighs down the scales of justice to one side.
What weighs down the scales? The burden of proof falling on the prosecution? Jesus Christ.................
Page 2 of 7
Popular
Back to top
Follow SECRant for SEC Football News