Reply With Quote
Seriously? Half?
Why are all these people outraged by "stand your ground" or "Florida law" when "stand your ground" had nothing to do with this case and Florida uses the same basic definition of self defense as the other 50 states?
Seriously? Half?
also, police typically spend more time in impoverished areas where the inhabitants are minorities. so they're focusing all of their attention on blacks and latinos. if police spent majority of their time trying to stop fraud, sexual assaults and white collar crimes, the numbers would be flipped. those stats are very misleading.
Its easy to convict a poor minority who has no means to retain a Mark O'Mara or Don West. The easy convictions inflate prosecutors numbers and get them reelected based on people in the community feeling safe. Not saying they should not focus their efforts in both places, but you can see why they stick to the easy convictions.
As a side note, the very special prosecutor who headed the Zimmerman case was the same prosecutor who convicted Marissa Alexander. If Zimmerman is a murderer according to Corey, what is Alexander?
gotcha and i agree. in regards to marissa alexander, it just shows the hypocrisy and inconsistency in florida in regards to their syg and self defense laws. unlike zimmerman, marissa had no criminal record, didn't kill anyone and she was arrested on the spot. she chose to go the stand your ground route and it backfired in her face and got served 20 years in prison, sad.
ironically, corey said alexander wasn't in fear when she fired a warning shot. if that's her stance then i see why she and her legal team were so weak during the trayvon trial.
You Lie, duh
TM had every reason, under FL SYG, to feel REASONABLE fear of and confront, in his own defense, his attacker, even after initially not standing his ground and running away.
I think that thanks to the Martin/Zimmerman incident, Alexander might actually stand a chance of getting her conviction overturned. It would be the right thing to do.
I will make two additional notes that don't work in her favor and if a court takes them into consideration they might not overturn the conviction.
1. She went to the marital house after two months of staying away, and it is my understanding that she went while she knew her ex-husband would be away. (She has the right to do this but then she slept at the house instead of leaving before he could come home)
2. After going to her car, she could have fled at this point, no need to go back inside the house.
All that aside though, under the law, she would have been better off taking his life. What does that say about SYG?
Two notes I wanted to add about SYG as I have tried not to weigh in too much to the post trial Zimmerman case:
1. Even though there was not a SYG hearing, in the jury instructions, the court instructed the jury on SYG law. I have seen a few comments on here that incorrectly state that SYG was not a part of the Zimmerman case. They just did not have a SYG hearing.
2. SYG is taking a lot of heat, but one of the main reasons it was ins uted so that you could take deadly force before suffering injury or death was to protect women from being raped. No woman should have to wait until after she is raped to use deadly force. I still stand by the real intent of SYG law. Every state needs to reevalute the law and draft exceptions that would prevent armed vigilantism.
Last edited by elbamba; 07-19-2013 at 10:07 AM.
Offense intended, this is a stupid argument and it undermines the entire case the prosecution tried to make in the Zimmerman trial. By admitting that he had the right to defend himself, you are in essence, conceding that Martin became the agressor.
If Martin had killed Zimmerman, he might have very well been justified in doing so under SYG. However, he would have had to show that he was in fear of immenent bodily harm or death. A stranger following you would likely not rise to that level. If Zimmerman had been shouting obscenities at him and brandishing his gun, then its a different story. However, you have no proof that he was standing his ground nor do you have any proof that he was not the first to throw a punch.
You position is pieced together by a few rather small inconsistencies that Zimmerman gave law enforcement over a series of 6 interviews. Having been in this business long enough, stories vary every day. The heart of the story stays the same but the details always change. Get over thefact that he was found not guilty. Most reasonably people can reach the conclusion that there was not enough evidence to convict. There was nothing but speculation to support the prosecution, hardley the evidence that rises to beyond a reasonable doubt.
http://www.myfoxorlando.com/story/22...erman-attorney
Trayvon Martin's family attorney, Natalie Jackson, tweeted on Thursday that the stand your ground law was a part of this case.
"When we heard B37 speak about it on Anderson Cooper, she said that she really took that into consideration, and the jury did in their verdict. It was on the jury instructions. It was a part of this case. That's the problem in this case. Stand your ground has been used as a default excuse for every action wrong action in this case."
O'Mara disagrees.
Read more: http://www.myfoxorlando.com/story/22...#ixzz2ZVKEvnzx
" By admitting that he had the right to defend himself, you are in essence, conceding that Martin became the agressor. "
damn, what bull .
GZ was the stalking, armed vigilante, initiating the fear-engendering, threatening behavior, based on GZ's racial profiling. TM did nothing but defend himself AGAINST THE ARMED AGGRESSOR. That doesn't make TM the aggressor.
While I agree with O'Mara that it was not apart of the case he was making, the jury could still consider it as it was in the jury instructions and like Jackson said, the juror acknowledged that they used it in reaching their conclusion. I would also imagine that the jury had seen SYG as an issue in this case prior to being selected. We all know that this case was in all of our faces for 16 months. For the jurors and witnesses to suggest that they had not been influenced by all the media information on the case is most likely a lie.
You are stupid.
according to her ex husband's testimony, he wouldn't let her leave the house until she sat down and talked to him. she then ran to the garage to her car to grab her weapon, but she couldn't leave the garage because the door was locked(?)
[I]Gray said that when she tried to leave the bathroom, “I met her where the sink was, and she wanted to get by me and I wouldn’t let her by and I was backing up slow but I was using my body to pretty much contain her in that one area where I want her to be at. [S]he got the bathroom door closed and she locked it, so I were beating on it. was there waiting for her to come out of the bathroom.”
“I was in a rage. I was in a rage, so I was saying a lot of things.” He said, “I beat on the door hard enough where it could have been broken open. [P]robably has some dents.” And: “I was mad, you know … I called her a and a .”
“She was trying to get by and I was sitting there trying to make her talk to me. [T]he more she didn’t want to talk about it, the more I was not letting her by.” After she got out of the bathroom, “I was telling her, she ain’t going nowhere, she going to sit right here. [S]he was trying to get by … and I was telling her she not going nowhere.”
[I]He was asked, “Did you ever tell her you knew people that would do your dirt?” Gray said, “Yeah. ain’t going to lie. I been in the streets … I know a lot of people …” Asked if the purpose of “saying something like that was to let her know if she didn’t do what you wanted her to do that you could have hurt her or something?,” he answered, “That’s correct.”
He described her going to the garage, “but I knew that she couldn’t leave out the garage because the garage door was locked …” He reiterated, “I knew she couldn’t get out of the garage.”
“She came back through the doors and she had a gun [from her car]. And she said, ‘You need to leave.’ I told her, I ain’t leaving until you talk to me … and I started walking towards her and she shot in the air.”
Remember, Corey claims that Alexander was not scared at this point. Really. She also claims that Rico Gray lied in this deposition to protect Alexander. Because misogynist monsters always implicate themselves in crimes to protect women.
SYG was BLATANTLY in the judge's instructions and the jury verdict. They said GZ had every right to use lethal force, permitted by FL SYB, to protect himself against TM protecting himself. Before the FL SYG law, the judge's instructions would have been very different, as I posted above.
Before the jury got the case, lawyers from both sides took them through the evidence again.
Zimmerman’s lead defense attorney, Mark O’Mara, went first. He said Zimmerman is “not guilty of anything but protecting his own life.”
Martin, he said, sowed the seeds of his own destruction.
“We know he had the opportunity to go home, and he didn't do that,” O’Mara said. “The person who decided to make the night violent was the guy who didn't go home when he had the chance.”
There were four minutes from the moment Zimmerman reported to a police dispatcher that Martin was “running” to the moment when a resident called 911 to report a fight in progress, O’Mara said.
To demonstrate that, O’Mara then said nothing for four minutes as Zimmerman nervously mopped his brow.
“Four minutes,” O’Mara told the jury. “That felt like a long time. Four minutes to what? To walk home? To run home?”
But Martin didn’t do that, the lawyer said, adding that he circled back and attacked Zimmerman.
Martin had 4 minutes to walk home from the time Zimmerman told the dispatcher he was running. Martin could have headed home in that time but he decided to lay in wait and ambush Zimmerman. To argue against that makes you look like a fool.
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/crim...icle-1.1397053
Thanks for the update. It would be a travesty if this case is not overturned.
It's a boilerplate instruction. As O'Mara pointed out, "excusable homicide" is also in the instruction, but had nothing to do with this case.
http://www.flcourts18.org/PDF/Press_...structions.pdf
the boilerplate instructions are informed by the FL SYG law, the boilerplate instructions BEFORE the FL SYG law were different.
Give up. Boutons is just too stupid and butthurt to admit that that it was a legal self defense shoot. Neither the prosecution or the defense addressed SYG during the trial. It was all about "reasonable fear of serious injury". That's why the prosecution expended so much effort trying to trivialize the broken nose and cuts to his head. They were tryuing to convince the jury his fear wasn't reasonable.
FuzzyLumpkins was there and has assurred me that his fear was unreasonable. He's seen brains spill out god damn it.
"it was a legal self defense shoot."
legalized by the FL SYG law
Legalized by self defense in all 50 states.
You sure are a dumb, stubborn mothe er.
Justice Department to Florida police: Hold Zimmerman’s gun until our investigation ends
http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2013/07/1...e+Raw+Story%29
There are currently 2 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 2 guests)
Posting Permissions
