Odds that Luigi gets off?

[MyGodWearsAHoodie]

Yes you can.  You don't have to give a reason.

I am not talking from a legal perspective, but a practical one.  Be a lot easier for a sympathetic juror to vote not guilty if there is a colorable argument that Lugi was not the gun man.

[Spider-Dan]

Yes you can.  You don't have to give a reason.

You have to give a reason to the other jurors to get them to vote Not Guilty, otherwise it's just a hung jury.

[Dave Gray]

Yes, that's all I'm expecting is a hung jury.  But an individual juror doesn't have to give any reason for their vote.

[MyGodWearsAHoodie]

What do you consider getting off?  For example he is convicted of manslaughter gets sentenced to 6 years and serves 3, would you consider that a win for defense or the state?

[Dave Gray]

What do you consider getting off?  For example he is convicted of manslaughter gets sentenced to 6 years and serves 3, would you consider that a win for defense or the state?

It was kind of an open question to start conversation, more than anything specific.

....but no, I was thinking that he isn't convicted of a crime, either through getting found not guilty (not likely) or multiple hung juries where the State (maybe through public support or political pressure) declines to continue to pursue the case.

[CF DolFan]

We don't know if he broke the law or not.   The question is, who started the fight that led to him pulling out his gun?   And was he really in danger or is this a similar case of that parking lot incident we had over on the Gulf Coast somewhere?   If I recall correctly, that guy was convicted.

Except the evidence overwhelmingly pointed to he was getting his head bashed into the concrete when he shot Martin. I'm not sure what kind of person it would take to think that didn't give him the right to fear for his life and defend. Being  an asshole is not against the law and certainly doesn't take away one's rights to defend themselves.   

[CF DolFan]

All three were equally found Not Guilty of the murders they were charged with.  Zimmerman is the only one of the three who directly admitted to taking a life; the fact that you happen to agree with his doing so doesn't make him any more "innocent" than Simpson or Anthony.

In any case, my point was that hiding behind "They broke no law" is not an excuse for immoral actions.  Why do you declare OJ to be any more guilty of committing a crime than this CEO?

Haha a... you're right. I guess the 90+% who feel that way are wrong. Most everyone who defended him later came out to insinuate or admit he probably did it.

[Spider-Dan]

If a Not Guilty verdict is "proof" Zimmerman didn't murder Martin, then a Not Guilty verdict is also "proof" OJ and Casey Anthony didn't commit murder, either.

Most everyone who defended him later came out to insinuate or admit he probably did it.

100% of people (including Zimmerman himself) admit Zimmerman killed Martin.  The difference is that y'all approve of Martin's death.

[Sibster]

If a Not Guilty verdict is "proof" Zimmerman didn't murder Martin, then a Not Guilty verdict is also "proof" OJ and Casey Anthony didn't commit murder, either.
100% of people (including Zimmerman himself) admit Zimmerman killed Martin.  The difference is that y'all approve of Martin's death.

The hell we do.   He was just a kid going to get some Skittles.   There probably was a fistfight and Martin got the upper hand before Zimmerman pulled out his gun.   The only thing that got Zimmerman off was they couldn't prove who threw the first punch.

[CF DolFan]

If a Not Guilty verdict is "proof" Zimmerman didn't murder Martin, then a Not Guilty verdict is also "proof" OJ and Casey Anthony didn't commit murder, either.
100% of people (including Zimmerman himself) admit Zimmerman killed Martin.  The difference is that y'all approve of Martin's death.

I do not, nor have ever, "approved of his death". In fact I relate to Martin more than Zimmerman in this scenario. When I was  a punk kid of 15 years of age I got off on beating up adults and letting them know a 15 year old just kicked your arse! This could have happened to me to me as well. Although it didn't happen to me, I did have a gun pulled on me once. The law is there for a reason and while legal, it was still a very unfortunate act. I was very, very, fortunate that my youth did not destroy my life because I did some bad things.

[Spider-Dan]

If there's a difference between "I think Martin's death was legal and justified" and "I approve of Martin's death," I don't know what it is.
Seems like the same thing to me.

[Sibster]

If there's a difference between "I think Martin's death was legal and justified" and "I approve of Martin's death," I don't know what it is.
Seems like the same thing to me.

It's not.   There are those who think Martin started the altercation, and therefore the law says that his death was justifiable.   But them approving of Martin's death is an entirely different matter.   I don't think anyone would approve of a 15 year old boy dying at the hands of a grown man when it could've been prevented by the man minding his own business.

[Phishfan]

Approval of something is completely different than understanding the law as it is written.

[Spider-Dan]

So what, are you saying you disapprove of the relevant laws?  Because I doubt that's the case for the pro-Zimmerman crowd, either.

To say that Zimmerman's killing of Martin was justified is to approve of it.  This is fairly straightforward:

- if a bystander breaks the window of a burning home so that kids inside can escape, I would say I "approve" of breaking the window
- if a father shoots a stranger who has broken into his home, I would say I "approve" of the shooting
- if a woman bites off the finger of an attacker attempting to assault her, I would say I "approve" of the dismemberment

So why are y'all suddenly splitting hairs over whether you "approve" of Martin's death?  If you're one of the people who thinks Luigi was justified in killing the CEO, that means you approve of Brian Thompson's death.

[CF DolFan]

So what, are you saying you disapprove of the relevant laws?  Because I doubt that's the case for the pro-Zimmerman crowd, either.

To say that Zimmerman's killing of Martin was justified is to approve of it.  This is fairly straightforward:

- if a bystander breaks the window of a burning home so that kids inside can escape, I would say I "approve" of breaking the window
- if a father shoots a stranger who has broken into his home, I would say I "approve" of the shooting
- if a woman bites off the finger of an attacker attempting to assault her, I would say I "approve" of the dismemberment

So why are y'all suddenly splitting hairs over whether you "approve" of Martin's death?  If you're one of the people who thinks Luigi was justified in killing the CEO, that means you approve of Brian Thompson's death.

Only because you choose to see it that way. I don't think the average person would have a problem understanding the difference between understanding and approving. I understand Luigi's supposed motive but I don't approve of it as I also understand murder is illegal.