S*********g
发帖数: 24893 | 1 如果trayvon把zimmerman打死了，说是z先掏枪，不得已自卫.
法庭会怎么判？ |
G**********3
发帖数: 162 | 2 这要看法官陪审团是不是华人
【在 S*********g 的大作中提到】
: 如果trayvon把zimmerman打死了，说是z先掏枪，不得已自卫.
: 法庭会怎么判？
|
m**x
发帖数: 8454 | 3 得有证据显示芝麻仁死的时候手里握着枪
【在 S*********g 的大作中提到】
: 如果trayvon把zimmerman打死了，说是z先掏枪，不得已自卫.
: 法庭会怎么判？
|
S*********g
发帖数: 24893 | 4 Z的确是掏枪了啊
我的意思是如果trayvon手脚快，先把zimmerman打死了，是不是self defense？
【在 m**x 的大作中提到】
: 得有证据显示芝麻仁死的时候手里握着枪
|
m**x
发帖数: 8454 | 5 显然是
但是还是要承担故意伤害罪吧，因为他先打人了
【在 S*********g 的大作中提到】
: Z的确是掏枪了啊
: 我的意思是如果trayvon手脚快，先把zimmerman打死了，是不是self defense？
|
p**********d
发帖数: 7918 | 6 如果活著的是他，誰能證明是他先打人？當然“中立”的陪審團仍然有可能這麼覺得。
【在 m**x 的大作中提到】
: 显然是
: 但是还是要承担故意伤害罪吧，因为他先打人了
|
m**x
发帖数: 8454 | 7 因为小黑身上没伤。这种事情不需要人说的，你以为法医干嘛的？
【在 p**********d 的大作中提到】
: 如果活著的是他，誰能證明是他先打人？當然“中立”的陪審團仍然有可能這麼覺得。
|
p**********d
发帖数: 7918 | 8 忘了“Beyond reasonable doubt”了？動手就可以傷人，這要是練傢伙才行吧。
【在 m**x 的大作中提到】
: 因为小黑身上没伤。这种事情不需要人说的，你以为法医干嘛的？
|
m**x
发帖数: 8454 | 9 可是芝麻仁实实在在受伤了
【在 p**********d 的大作中提到】
: 忘了“Beyond reasonable doubt”了？動手就可以傷人，這要是練傢伙才行吧。
|
S*********g
发帖数: 24893 | 10 trayvon只要说z先掏枪就好了
受伤算个屁啊，打死都白打
【在 m**x 的大作中提到】
: 可是芝麻仁实实在在受伤了
|
|
|
m**x
发帖数: 8454 | 11 故意伤害罪
【在 S*********g 的大作中提到】
: trayvon只要说z先掏枪就好了
: 受伤算个屁啊，打死都白打
|
S*********g
发帖数: 24893 | 12 对方先掏枪要杀你
你反击，把对方打伤打死，都是无罪
【在 m**x 的大作中提到】
: 故意伤害罪
|
m**x
发帖数: 8454 | 13 你以为只要没人看见就可以随便编瞎话？调查人员都是吃素的么？案发现场可以发现很
多线索反映当时情况。
【在 S*********g 的大作中提到】
: 对方先掏枪要杀你
: 你反击，把对方打伤打死，都是无罪
|
m**x
发帖数: 8454 | |
S*********g
发帖数: 24893 | 15 你把陪审团当神仙了
有没有罪，完全看陪审团的肤色，前有辛普森，后有字码门
【在 m**x 的大作中提到】
: 你一旦被证明说了谎就会失去法官和陪审团的信任
|
p**********d
发帖数: 7918 | 16 這次檢方敗訴很大程度也是因為證據不充分。如果案件反過來是黑人殺白人，證據收集
做得可能會好得多。
【在 m**x 的大作中提到】
: 你以为只要没人看见就可以随便编瞎话？调查人员都是吃素的么？案发现场可以发现很
: 多线索反映当时情况。
|
S*********g
发帖数: 24893 | 17 说到点子上了！
【在 p**********d 的大作中提到】
: 這次檢方敗訴很大程度也是因為證據不充分。如果案件反過來是黑人殺白人，證據收集
: 做得可能會好得多。
|
m**x
发帖数: 8454 | 18 这只是你的主观臆断。事实是政治上有压力将芝麻仁判刑，和你的臆断矛盾。
【在 p**********d 的大作中提到】
: 這次檢方敗訴很大程度也是因為證據不充分。如果案件反過來是黑人殺白人，證據收集
: 做得可能會好得多。
|
r******i
发帖数: 1445 | 19 你说的是两种情况对比：
i) A把B往死里打，B用一枪结果了他以阻止A把B打死。
ii） B用枪威胁要杀死A，A上前徒手把B打死。
区别在于，ii)的情况，除非A会如来神掌一发把B打死，通常在把B打死前B就会无力反
击了。如果B无力反击了A还继续打，就不是“防卫”了。 |
b********6
发帖数: 35437 | |
|
|
y*****n
发帖数: 11251 | 21 小黑虽然未到18岁，但是身强力壮。被打了没留下什么伤。
【在 m**x 的大作中提到】
: 因为小黑身上没伤。这种事情不需要人说的，你以为法医干嘛的？
|
y*****n
发帖数: 11251 | 22 夺下芝麻的枪，开枪打死芝麻，肯定无罪。
【在 S*********g 的大作中提到】
: 如果trayvon把zimmerman打死了，说是z先掏枪，不得已自卫.
: 法庭会怎么判？
|
u****q
发帖数: 24345 | 23 判mitbbs全站封StephenKing 14天。
【在 S*********g 的大作中提到】
: 如果trayvon把zimmerman打死了，说是z先掏枪，不得已自卫.
: 法庭会怎么判？
|
c****3
发帖数: 1143 | 24 You are right. This is the case!
所以说一出手就得搞死，搞死了随George Zimmerman怎么说.
ZT
George Zimmerman Is Lying
by Conceptual Guerilla
Watching the Zimmerman trial, the images coming out of the courtroom seem to
be convincing some media observers that Zimmerman's self-defense claim is
colorable.
Zimmerman's case is that Martin jumped out some bushes, said "what's your
problem," and then punched Zimmerman. According to Zimmerman, Martin then
jumped on top of Zimmerman and began slamming his head into the sidewalk ...
leaving no blood, and causing no concussion.
This is becoming the media's narrative, making the case whether Zimmerman
was in sufficient danger to warrant using deadly force.
There is just one problem with Zimmerman's defense. He's lying about who
was the aggressor in starting the fight. He's lying, and the proof is right
in front of everybody.
Let me just lay out the relevant facts and evidence. It's very simple.
Trayvon Martin was on the phone when the fight started. He was talking to
Rachel Jeantel.
You don't have to believe Rachel Jeantel, there are phone records that show
the call. Furthermore, her description of the call are entirely consistent
with the known facts. Here is what she said about the call -- the only
thing you need to know.
“Trayvon said, ‘What, are you following me for,’ and the man said, ‘What
are you doing here?’ Next thing I hear is somebody pushing, and somebody
pushed Trayvon because the head set just fell. I called him again, and he
didn’t answer the phone.
We know that Zimmerman was following Trayvon Martin.
So it is entirely believable that Martin would ask "why are you following me
."
We know that Zimmerman suspected Martin of being a burglar or something. We
know that Zimmerman complained about "these assholes always get[ting] away."
So it is entirely believable that Zimmerman said "what are your doing around
here?"
And we know that Zimmerman and Martin fought each other .... making it
entirely believable that Rachel Jeantel heard them scuffling.
That's all you need to know to make George Zimmerman a liar. Phone records
show Martin on the phone with Rachel Jeantel, and Jeantel testifies to facts
that are entirely consistent with undisputed facts.
Trayvon was on the phone with Rachel Jeantel. Which makes Zimmermans story
about Martin jumping out of bushes so much hogwash. It also disproves
Zimmerman's claim that Martin threw the first punch. Martin was talking on
the phone. Talking on the phone and starting fights are mutually exclusive
activities.
And that's it. Zimmerman's a liar. Whatever he says about any alleged
attack, whatever he says about being punched in the nose, whatever he says
about the "danger" he was in, whatever he says to make out his self-defense
claim, George Zimmerman is a liar. Beyond a reasonable doubt.
Do not underestimate the value of proving that George Zimmerman is a liar.
In order to acquit him, the jury must first believe him. |
g**a
发帖数: 2129 | 25 on the phone and start fighting are not mutually exclusive, especially when
you are using headset. Why you can't fight when both of your hands are free?
It is a fact that GZ was wounded. It is also a fact that TM was not.
to
【在 c****3 的大作中提到】
: You are right. This is the case!
: 所以说一出手就得搞死，搞死了随George Zimmerman怎么说.
: ZT
: George Zimmerman Is Lying
: by Conceptual Guerilla
: Watching the Zimmerman trial, the images coming out of the courtroom seem to
: be convincing some media observers that Zimmerman's self-defense claim is
: colorable.
: Zimmerman's case is that Martin jumped out some bushes, said "what's your
: problem," and then punched Zimmerman. According to Zimmerman, Martin then
|
d*******g
发帖数: 8992 | 26 对方先掏枪还能把人打死，真牛。
粪坑你去试试看吧
【在 S*********g 的大作中提到】
: 对方先掏枪要杀你
: 你反击，把对方打伤打死，都是无罪
|
c*******c
发帖数: 726 | 27 我靠，如果芝麻人在先掏枪且意识情形行为自主的情况下还被马丁打得遍体零伤致死，
那马丁是练北斗神拳的么？这种假设完全不可能成立，比南京徐老太的那个更没有下限 |
y*****d
发帖数: 4451 | 28 如果造成z掏枪的原因是trayvon自己那就不行，first aggressor |
n********n
发帖数: 8336 | 29 有道理。
B用枪威胁要杀死A，A上前徒手打B （这种情况少见吧），如果B无力反击了A还继续打
，看第一中情况：B用一枪结果了A。
【在 r******i 的大作中提到】
: 你说的是两种情况对比：
: i) A把B往死里打，B用一枪结果了他以阻止A把B打死。
: ii） B用枪威胁要杀死A，A上前徒手把B打死。
: 区别在于，ii)的情况，除非A会如来神掌一发把B打死，通常在把B打死前B就会无力反
: 击了。如果B无力反击了A还继续打，就不是“防卫”了。
|
n********n
发帖数: 8336 | 30 换成刀就合理了。
【在 d*******g 的大作中提到】
: 对方先掏枪还能把人打死，真牛。
: 粪坑你去试试看吧
|
