Just wondering....

[dean_martin]

[QUOTE=markw;394873]Thank you. This actually make sense and makes me believe that you might be the only one hear who was capable of listening rationaly to what I was saying as opposed to sticking their fingers in their ears and going "la la la la". For them, yeah, it's just a public lynching.[/QUOTE/]
All I meant was there's room for opinion in the Zimmerman case. I want to see if there's any Florida state law that allows you to follow a guy, confront him, start some ****, then claim self defense after you shoot him because he was beatin' your ass for being an *******. If so, you can bet my state will pass a similar law. Then, I'll be walkin' around lookin' over my shoulder for *******s.

[frenchmon]

Well they cant use the Stand your ground law....Zimmerman said he did not what to use that. Having said that, all the defense has to do is create doubt, and so far they are really doing that. That guy John Good really hurt the state by saying he saw George on the bottom and George was calling for help. I am a good judge of character and I studied his every movement and face expressions...the guy has been telling his lies for about a year now he has it all down pat. My gut feeling is George will walk. Oh I work in IT.....I sit at work and wait for a problem to come to me....so I get a chance to watch the trial online everyday. I then get home at 1:30pm and continue to watch....I can see what the defense is doing. Its obvious George initiated all of this....it was him that attacked Treyvon and Treyvon kicked his punk ass, so George shot him. What a punk ass.

Pardon my French.

[Feanor]

Well they cant use the Stand your ground law....Zimmerman said he did not what to use that. Having said that, all the defense has to do is create doubt, and so far they are really doing that. That guy John Good really hurt the state by saying he saw George on the bottom and George was calling for help. I am a good judge of character and I studied his every movement and face expressions...the guy has been telling his lies for about a year now he has it all down pat. My gut feeling is George will walk. Oh I work in IT.....I sit at work and wait for a problem to come to me....so I get a chance to watch the trial online everyday. I then get home at 1:30pm and continue to watch....I can see what the defense is doing. Its obvious George initiated all of this....it was him that attacked Treyvon and Treyvon kicked his punk ass, so George shot him. What a punk ass.

Pardon my French.

I'm betting Zimmerman will walk. All it takes is reasonable doubt. That he "probably" did it, that he should have stayed in the car, that he was racially motivated, that he was or was not as badly hurt as he makes out, is all irrelevant unless it can be proven that he shot Martin while Martin was passive or pacified, and it doesn't look like that will be proven.

[markw]

All I meant was there's room for opinion in the Zimmerman case. I want to see if there's any Florida state law that allows you to follow a guy, confront him, start some ****, then claim self defense after you shoot him because he was beatin' your ass for being an *******. If so, you can bet my state will pass a similar law. Then, I'll be walkin' around lookin' over my shoulder for *******s.

Dunno about that sequence, but reasonable doubt is a strong thing indeed. As for following and confronting, I don't think that's the same as actually initiating a physical altercation. Being a loudmouth ashhole is one thing (our roads are rife with those) but unless it gets physical, it's just noise. So,t he question is who started it, which we'll never know and/or, who was on the bottom?

But, as I've always said, never confuse the law with justice.

FWIW, there's already rumors of large scale rioting if Zimmernam gets off. Ain't that great?

[dean_martin]

[QUOTE=markw;394880]Dunno about that sequence

It would be clearer if I said a$$hole instead of *******.

[markw]

[QUOTE=dean_martin;394881]

Dunno about that sequence

It would be clearer if I said a$$hole instead of *******.

Actually, I was referring to the sequence of events leading to the shooting, not the asterisks.

[dean_martin]

[QUOTE=markw;394883]

Actually, I was referring to the sequence of events leading to the shooting, not the asterisks.

I know.

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

I have two friends named "Terrance". Neither one is so pompus as to demand they be called that. Eveyone calls them "Terry". No problemo, and ain't no way in hell I'm calling him "sir".

Well, I am not those friends, and my name is not Terry. Got that?

I think it is rather eggheaded to think a person is pompous for wanting to be called Terrence(or Terrance) if that is their name. Every Terrance I know wants to be called Terrance, not Terry. When a Terrence says call me Terry, that is when you do it. You don't ASSume you can shorten anyone's name.

Now that my point has been made to those capable of undertanding it, you may now rejoin your regularly scheduled lynching, already in progress.

And you can continue to ASSume we are lynching somebody.

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

Frankly, terry, I couldn't care less about what you think.

The feeling is mutual.

As I said earlier, your minds are alread made up. Reading this thread confirms that. You're all just sitting here, rubbing tour hands, looking for reasons to justify your already formed beliefs, and having a schadenfreude orgasm waiting for the verdict.

And you are ASSuming far too much here. You don't know where my mind is on this issue, I have mentioned nothing. Do you see how stupid this makes you look?

Now, since the trial isn't over, were did these beliefs come from?

What beliefs? I have not stated my beliefs.

Apparantly that a 13 month old WHITE baby was shot in the face in his stroller right in front of his mother by a BLACK punk doesn't seem to bother you at all, and if that in itself isn't racist, I don't know what is. And the same goes for MSM for dropping this one and crucifying Zimmerman, a latino.

How do you stupidly gather all of this when I have not stated my opinion, or really made any comments on the case at all? Do you see how stupid you look for this comment?

By the way brightness, I AM LATINO!

Remember, I'm not defending anoone here. I'm just pointing out that the media has played y'all (plural for yall), and y'all too brainwashed to admit it.

How do you know the media played me when I have not stated an opinion on this case. Do you see how stupid you look on this comment?

So, deal with it, terry.

I don't have to deal with anything stupid.

Terry shortened and with a little t, if that is not demeaning, I don't know what is. Please don't ASSume we are as stupid as you look with all of these assumptions you have thrown out there.

[markw]

Well, I am not those friends, and my name is not Terry. Got that?

I think it is rather eggheaded to think a person is pompous for wanting to be called Terrence(or Terrance) if that is their name. Every Terrance I know wants to be called Terrance, not Terry. When a Terrence says call me Terry, that is when you do it. You don't ASSume you can shorten anyone's name.



And you can continue to ASSume we are lynching somebody.

Look, here's the scoop..

When you address me in your usual condescendong tone, I'll call you whatever I want. If you want respect, you gotta show some youeself.

Sofar, all I see is some loudmouth, bloviating, blowhard who thinks the can talk down to me trying to intimidate me.

So, you have three choices: 1) ignore me and I'll ignore you or 2) address me in a civil manner and I'll reciprocate, or 3) Continue dumping on me and deal with my responses.

So far, you've chosen option three.

Got that Now, move on and get a life.

Oh, you might want to add that ASS to your string of letters you're so proud of.

Oh, I know you're latino. Who here doesn't, and who cares? FWIW, My wife is brasilian. Why should that make a difference in anything?

[JohnMichael]

You two could ignore each other.

I sometimes think what people do not like about someone else they fail to see in themselves.

Look, here's the scoop..

When you address me in your usual condescendong tone, I'll call you whatever I want. If you want respect, you gotta show some youeself.

Sofar, all I see is some loudmouth, bloviating, blowhard who thinks the can talk down to me trying to intimidate me.

So, you have three choices: 1) ignore me and I'll ignore you or 2) address me in a civil manner and I'll reciprocate, or 3) Continue dumping on me and deal with my responses.

So far, you've chosen option three.

Got that Now, move on and get a life.

Oh, you might want to add that ASS to your string of letters you're so proud of.

Oh, I know you're latino. Who here doesn't, and who cares? FWIW, My wife is brasilian. Why should that make a difference in anything?

[frenchmon]

I'm betting Zimmerman will walk. All it takes is reasonable doubt. That he "probably" did it, that he should have stayed in the car, that he was racially motivated, that he was or was not as badly hurt as he makes out, is all irrelevant unless it can be proven that he shot Martin while Martin was passive or pacified, and it doesn't look like that will be proven.

The only thing from John Goods testimony that was hurtful to the defense and their case was John Good said he saw, as Zimmerman lay on the ground, his hands where free and he probably could have got up or wiggled out. The state may take advantage of that later in the trial. That establishes the fact that Zimmerman did not have to shoot the guy. It establishes the fact he may not have been helpless as he claims and it really was murder. Zimmer said Treyvon was going for the gun and that he touched the gun....but there in none of Treyvins DNA on the gun, only Zimmermans....that's very important. None of Zimmermans DNA was found on treyvon...no blood or anything, so how does that happened if Treyvon kicked his ass as shown in the pictures? This is a total mystery. But there is lots of trial to go, so we will see what happens.

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

Look, here's the scoop..

When you address me in your usual condescendong tone, I'll call you whatever I want. If you want respect, you gotta show some youeself.

Oh piss off Mark. You don't show any respect to anyone, and based on that you don't deserve any.

Sofar, all I see is some loudmouth, bloviating, blowhard who thinks the can talk down to me trying to intimidate me.

Nobody cares about you. You are nothing more than a piece of crap on a elephants azz. Who cares about that?

So, you have three choices: 1) ignore me and I'll ignore you or 2) address me in a civil manner and I'll reciprocate, or 3) Continue dumping on me and deal with my responses.

No Mark, these are your three choice. I have my own choices, and no azzhole is going to make mine for me.

So far, you've chosen option three.

Go ahead and throw you responses, they don't bother me one bit.

Got that Now, move on and get a life.

Say this four thousand times in front of the mirrior.

Oh, you might want to add that ASS to your string of letters you're so proud of.

When I refer to you, the word is so appropriate.

Oh, I know you're latino. Who here doesn't, and who cares? FWIW, My wife is brasilian. Why should that make a difference in anything?

You cannot pull your usual black/white slant with me, and I am letting you know that.

I see you didn't even address the fact that you judged my opinion before I even made it. No respect in that is there? You stupidly flew off the handle before I could even post one.

[markw]

That short line of text between my name and avatar pretty much what I think of you.

Buh-buy ...cwybaby

[JohnMichael]

I am sorry this thread stopped due to bad behaviors. I am wondering as the trial is coming to an end before verdict what does everyone think today? I want to read opinions regarding the trial and not each other.

[Hyfi]

I think he is gonna walk. I hope otherwise but that is my gut feeling. I do hope he loses a civil suit or worse. I do wonder why this case continues to be the main news article while so many worse things and murders go on daily. I have my conspiracy theories on that but will reserve for now.

Aside from GZ being a complete Ahole, which he should be tried and convicted, the real injustice may be that Martin called a Latino a Cracker.

[JohnMichael]

I think this case is interesting in that we know beyond a shadow of a doubt that George shot Trayvon. The real interest is why he made so many bad choices that led to the death of Trayvon. Self defense or murder and I think it was murder.

[Hyfi]

It would have been self defense if GZ sat in his car and TM attacked him there. The fact that he followed and kept stalking makes it a bit otherwise. I would have stopped and decked his ass too if he was harassing me in my own neighborhood.

[Feanor]

It would have been self defense if GZ sat in his car and TM attacked him there. The fact that he followed and kept stalking makes it a bit otherwise. I would have stopped and decked his ass too if he was harassing me in my own neighborhood.

I think Zimmerman will walk because it hasn't been proven that he didn't act in self-defence; (notice the double negative here).

Racism doesn't matter; hoodyphobia doesn't matter; police wannabe doesn't matter. It isn't against the law to disregard a 911 operator's suggestion, (maybe it should be). Nor is it against the law to confront a potential malfeasant, (maybe it should be). What is against the law is to pin a person to the ground and beat his/her head against the concrete. Are we sure this happened? No. OTOH, are we sure it didn't happen? No, not from the evidence I've heard.

There is reasonable doubt that Zimmerman didn't act in self-defence, therefore he must be acquitted - QED.

Zimmerman was emboldened to approach Martin against the 911 guy's advice because he was (a) lawfully armed with handgun, (b) almost certainly aware of Florida Stand-you-ground laws.

[JohnMichael]

Did Trayvon think he was in danger and needed to stand his ground? Can he not safely walk to the store for skittles? George was safe in his car until he got out to follow Trayvon. Trayvon was being followed by someone he did not know. First he was followed by vehicle and then on foot. I am sure Trayvon was fearful and ready to protect himself.

[markw]

It would have been self defense if GZ sat in his car and TM attacked him there. The fact that he followed and kept stalking makes it a bit otherwise. I would have stopped and decked his ass too if he was harassing me in my own neighborhood.

Granted, Z was a ashhole but, if he didn't throw the first punch, well...

As to Martin, throwing a punch to get Z off is ash and walk away would be one thing but to sucker punch him, knock him down, get on top of the out-of shape Zimmerman, straddle him, and power-pummel him without any sign of letting up is a different matter entirely. Even by the farthest strech of the imagination does that far exceed any "stand your ground" interpertation.

That now sort of puts Zimmerman in the victim seat and he was defending himself.

It was funny to see the prosecurion change their story from where, in the beginning, Zimmernam was on top but towards the end, they were showing, with the dummy, Martin on the top. Cerdibility issues? Nah, not in the least.

Basically, this was two ashholes, and one is dead. Life goes on.

[dean_martin]

I think Zimmerman will walk because it hasn't been proven that he didn't act in self-defence; (notice the double negative here).

Racism doesn't matter; hoodyphobia doesn't matter; police wannabe doesn't matter. It isn't against the law to disregard a 911 operator's suggestion, (maybe it should be). Nor is it against the law to confront a potential malfeasant, (maybe it should be). What is against the law is to pin a person to the ground and beat his/her head against the concrete. Are we sure this happened? No. OTOH, are we sure it didn't happen? No, not from the evidence I've heard.

There is reasonable doubt that Zimmerman didn't act in self-defence, therefore he must be acquitted - QED.

Zimmerman was emboldened to approach Martin against the 911 guy's advice because he was (a) lawfully armed with handgun, (b) almost certainly aware of Florida Stand-you-ground laws.

Those things DO matter in trying to determine GZ's intent or what was in his mind when he acted. That's why the murder charge is going to the jury. There's just enough evidence of ill will, spite and/or hatred (an element of the crime) to let the jury decide.

As far as self-defense goes, that's a question for the jury too because the evidence isn't clear. There is some subtle "burden shifting" on an affirmative defense. The minority view is that the defendant carries the burden of proof on self-defense by a preponderance (more likely than not) of the evidence. The majority view is that evidence of self-defense must be examined along with all the evidence. IOW, the fact-finder is not supposed to examine the evidence of self-defense, if any, in a vacuum. Lack of self-defense is not an element of the crime of murder. Therefore, the state does not have to "disprove" it, but if there is evidence of self-defense, then the evidence taken as a whole must prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. It's a tricky and sometimes superficial legal analysis to reconcile the fact that lack of a legal "defense" to a crime is rarely an element of the crime (each element OF THE CRIME must be proved beyond a reasonable doubt) with the state's burden to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. What if the jury finds it difficult to believe that GZ pulled his gun while his shoulders/arm pits were pinned by Martin? A wild tale inconsistent with common sense is not reasonable doubt.

The lesser-included charge of Manslaughter: On this charge, I can see the jury not giving much weight to the "self-defense" defense even if they think the defense precludes a guilty verdict on murder.

[Feanor]

that ist's

Those things DO matter in trying to determine GZ's intent or what was in his mind when he acted. That's why the murder charge is going to the jury. There's just enough evidence of ill will, spite and/or hatred (an element of the crime) to let the jury decide.

As far as self-defense goes, that's a question for the jury too because the evidence isn't clear. There is some subtle "burden shifting" on an affirmative defense. The minority view is that the defendant carries the burden of proof on self-defense by a preponderance (more likely than not) of the evidence. The majority view is that evidence of self-defense must be examined along with all the evidence. IOW, the fact-finder is not supposed to examine the evidence of self-defense, if any, in a vacuum. Lack of self-defense is not an element of the crime of murder. Therefore, the state does not have to "disprove" it, but if there is evidence of self-defense, then the evidence taken as a whole must prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. It's a tricky and sometimes superficial legal analysis to reconcile the fact that lack of a legal "defense" to a crime is rarely an element of the crime (each element OF THE CRIME must be proved beyond a reasonable doubt) with the state's burden to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. What if the jury finds it difficult to believe that GZ pulled his gun while his shoulders/arm pits were pinned by Martin? A wild tale inconsistent with common sense is not reasonable doubt.

The lesser-included charge of Manslaughter: On this charge, I can see the jury not giving much weight to the "self-defense" defense even if they think the defense precludes a guilty verdict on murder.

Since you are a lawyer I defer to your insight about "subtle burden shifting", even as I note that you say it's the minority view that the defendant carries the burden of proof.

However in Canada the burden of self-defence does generally shift to the defendant. I'm told the Stand-your-ground is derive from the so-called "castle doctrine", but here in Canada the castle doctrine isn't recognized, that is, it is always a Canadian's responsibility to retreat from, or evade, a potential attack even in his own home, ("castle"). Certainly in Canada if a neighbour watch volunteer shot anybody, however likely that the latter was an actual malfeasant, he would be charged with murder ipso facto. No volunteer would be issued a carry permit; if he was carrying a gun unlawfully, there would be strong presumption that he came to the situation with the intended to used it.

I'm pretty sure that if you shoot an intruder in your house in Canada, you will be charged with manslaughter (at least) and the burden will be yours to proof it was self-defence. Also it virtually certain that you will be charged with a firearms offence since gun storage requirements here make it virtually impossible to quickly access a gun to use for self-defence.

[Hyfi]

There would have been no need for either to resort to self defense if GZ followed the simple instructions he was given. He created the situation. Period! How can you stalk and follow someone against direct instructions from the police, and then when the stalkee ends up turning the tables he then cries self defense and scared for his life. He should have just taken the beating he deserved and then filed assault charges.

[markw]

There would have been no need for either to resort to self defense if GZ followed the simple instructions he was given. He created the situation. Period! How can you stalk and follow someone against direct instructions from the police, and then when the stalkee ends up turning the tables he then cries self defense and scared for his life. He should have just taken the beating he deserved and then filed assault charges.

I don't think he's under any legal obligtion to follow the orders of a 911 operator. As for turning the table, I don't think the kid had any legal right to start a physical altercation, much less pin and pummel anyone. If such was the case, it's not Z's fault that he had to resort to the gun, which he ws legally allowed to carry, to protect himself.

Betcha of the kid knew he had a gun he wouldn't have started in throwing punches. That's the risk people take when CCW permits are out there. They may start in with the wrong guy, like this kid did.