LOL...
LOL...
You do that all the time.
I don't know if that's the way things are perceived under Florida law, but in most jurisdictions, that makes sense.
It's a hard thing to decide on. Should Zimmerman be released as long as he cooperates, or should he be incarcerated?
Which of you, if you shot someone in self defense, would think it's proper to be in jail awaiting your not guilty verdict?
Not in this case certainly and I am not like you where i just make up so that it fits your world view. How do you know it was self defense? You clairvoyant? You are so transparent its pathetic.
But I don't make things up. Not my fault if you are too stupid to understand.
Yeah I am dumb....
So smart guy, how do you know its self defense so that you can claim it as declarative?
The verdict of innocent is never used. its always guilty or not guilty. Its that way because of how presumption is used. This is an example of you making up and talking out of your ass.
See...Yeah I am dumb....
So smart guy, how do you know its self defense so that you can claim it as declarative?
You are too damn stupid.
I never said that. I have only gone as far as saying with the information we know of, it appears he is innocent. i am completely open to the possibility Zimmerman is guilty. I just don't believe that will be the case.
No...
There have been rare cases in history that have allowed a verdict of innocent.
Declaring that is was self defense. There is no 'open to possibility' in that phrasing.
And really if you are going to call me stupid point to specifics. Like capacitors, flywheelsor verdicts in American courts. Otherwise it just sounds petulant.
Point to one.
http://trial.laws.com/innocent
YOUThe Innocent Verdict
When it comes it comes to criminal trials there are often two parties present. There is the plaintiff, who can often be backed by law enforcement and then there is the defendant side; this is the side where the accused individual or people are found.
In the United States, one of the most common phrases used regarding criminal law is “innocent until proven guilty”; what this means is that before and while an individual is on trial, they are still considered to be innocent; the statements made against these individuals are allegations, and not yet deemed factual.
When court is in session both the prosecutor and the attorney will take turns questioning witnesses, the accused, and whoever they deem necessary in order to prove their cases. At this point the defendant is presumed innocent by the court of law, and it is the job of the prosecution to use the evidence that they have against the individual in order to prove guilt. Innocence is one of the rights the United States has guaranteed to the citizens, until a trial by jury is conducted.
Once a trial has been followed through in its entirety, the jury makes the decided vote regarding the innocence of the accused. If the jury finds insufficient evidence has been presented against the defendant, they can vote for a verdict of not guilty. Once the verdict has been handed out, the defendant can remain presumed innocent, and be released from the court, regarding the charges he or she had been affixed with.
ARE
DUMB
Except to conclude that is my standing point, you have to intentionally deny what I have repeatedly said all along, cherry picking one statement. Is that how you want to be remembered?
Isn't there room in your world for one omission of thought?
Typical dissembling from you. I didn't really mean that i just said its possible that combustion in the trophosphere caused the whole planet to flood. Oh and...
And i am the stupid one? Oh and:
Or did you not mean that either?
My God... You really are an idiot.
I'm done with you tonight. I have better things to do.
Fuzzy Wuzzy the hairless bear,
Fuzzy Wuzzy was fully bare.
Not so fuzzy, Wuzzy thought,
looking funny was Fuzzy Wuzzy.
Last edited by FuzzyLumpkins; 04-14-2012 at 04:32 AM.
I disagree that Zimmerman's curious change of heart regarding the meeting venue was something that needed to be listed in the affidavit. That is a fact that supports the allegation in the affidavit that Zimmerman pursued and confronted Trayvon, but the affidavit doesn't need to list every fact that supports a listed allegation.
I can almost guarantee that part of the tape willl be presented as evidence by the prosecution if this goes to trial. It's pretty persuasive evidence that Zimmerman intended to be in a different location when the police arrived than the mailboxes.
I also think it's a stretch to say that Zimmerman planned to stay exactly where he was. If that was his plan, why wouldn't he simply given the location to the 911 dispatcher? You have to look at the context of his change of heart. He was clearly upset and frustrated once he lost sight of Martin. Look at his "these assholes always get away" comment and the fact that he admitted to initially following Martin and can be heard running. That doesn't sound like a guy who would be content simply reporting a su ious sighting to the police and calling it a day. There's every reason to believe he wanted to continue to follow Martin so that he could provide the police as good of information as he could regarding Martin's precise location.
This said, I believe Zimmerman initiating the confrontation does not necessarily mean he is guilty of murder or kill his self-defense theory. I know that is what many believe, but my understanding of the law is simply that if Zimmerman reasonably felt his life was in jeopardy or serious bodily harm was imminent he can sucessful claim self-defense.
Think of it this way. Suppose I have a fender bender with you and we argue and you start a confrontation by shoving me (let's call it a moderate shove). Is the mere fact that you shoved me sufficient for me to feel my life is in danger and allow me to pull out a gun and shoot you and by doing so, not commit a crime? I would say absolutely not.
However, suppose my reaction to you shoving me is to pull out a knife and come charging at you. You now absolutely have reason to fear for your life and your shooting me would (pretty clearly in my opinion) be self-defense, even though you initiated the confrontation.
I believe this is why Zimmerman's father and brother and Joe Oliver have been on the tube articulating much moreso about George's head being beaten in and him fearing for his life than about who started the altercation.
"Who started it" is an important fact, but the make or break issue at the end of the day is whether Zimmerman was truly in a situation where Trayvon's physical actions were at a level where 12 jurors would reasonably agree that Zimmerman had reason to fear for his life or for major bodily harm. I think that's what the case boils down to.
Last edited by bobbyjoe; 04-14-2012 at 04:55 AM.
I don't disagree with much of what you said.
However, I don't believe the end of the 911 call is as incriminating as you do. I think defense could characterize it as I did but, it will all depend on how close to the point of the altercation and how soon before it occurred that the 911 call ended.
George Zimmerman claims he was attacked from behind by Trayvon Martin. If it happened as soon as the 911 call ended, I think Zimmerman makes a good case for being blindsided by Martin who may have been laying in wait.
I've hear a couple interviews with Zimmerman's father and he always states his son was confronted by Martin...he doesn't play it down.
But, you are right in one regard. It doesn't matter who confronted who if, in fact, Zimmerman was having his head bashed into the concrete at the time he feared for his life, pulled his gun, and shot Martin.
That is clear self-defense, no matter who started the argument.
And, without any serious injuries (other than the bullet wound, of course) prosecutors will have a difficult time saying Martin was inflicting proportional injuries on Zimmerman or defending himself when he was on top of Zimmerman, dribbling his head on the sidewalk.
they should be able to get stand your ground defense thrown out.
he had a gun....was in his car looking for prey....found his prey.....stalked his prey....killed his prey.
He's not claiming Stand Your Ground. Never has. In fact, he's claiming he never had a chance to retreat.
That was a figment of the Brady Bunch's imagination in order to get gun control issues back in game at Congress.
He hasn't even been arraigned. How do you know what he intends to claim one way or another? And he never had a chance to retreat but its not stand your ground? Are you really that dumb?
If you cannot retreat and you claim you did not initiate the conflict then what are you doing?
Self-defence maybe? I'm guessing that his case will hinge on the justifiable use of deadly force.
Given what we've seen so far, the only thing that could possible save Zimmerman, in my view, is the bullet forensics. I'm guessing that if the jury is rational he'll probably go down for manslaughter or perhaps a negligence-related charge depending on what's on the list.
This seems to be a reoccurring thing with you for ones who debate your views.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
