Quote:

---

Originally posted by Niki2:
They couldn't convict UNDER FLORIDA LAW. Congratulations, ALEC, NRA and gun manufacturers.

---

Quote:

---

"That's where I felt confused, where if a person kills someone, then you get charged for it," Maddy said. "But as the law was read to me, if you have no proof that he killed him intentionally, you can't say he's guilty."

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Niki2:
Yeah, there are no bad laws, there are no laws written because of a wrong agenda, and nobody ever suffered from bad laws or a miscarriage of justice. You betcha.

I'd take the time to list all the bad laws that have harmed people over the history of just OUR country, but I know that means nothing to you.

But you're right: Damn THAT Florida law, damn ALEC and the NRA for creating it, and damn the legislators who passed it.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Kwicko:



Any minute now Rappy will pop in to tell us all that the juror doesn't know what she's talking about, "what so ever," or that her "point is moot."

After all, what could she know about it? It's not like she was sitting on a jury and hearing all the evidence, right?

Oh...

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Niki2:
Obviously that's not what I'm saying. Nice try at twisting my words, but you fail.

---

Quote:

---

"That's where I felt confused, where if a person kills someone, then you get charged for it," Maddy said. "But as the law was read to me, if you have no proof that he killed him intentionally, you can't say he's guilty."

---

Quote:

---

But you're right: Damn THAT Florida law...

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Niki2:
You both fully understand what I've said...

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by 1kiki:This is the perfect case for jury nullification. But the jury was too docile, too trusting of 'the man' and 'the system', too eager to meet their duty in an approved 'responsible' way - and the prosecution too seemingly timid in its quest for justice - to result in justice. Instead what it got was a legal result.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Geezer:
So you're saying that the laws of this country should be changed so it's no longer necessary to prove that a person is actually guilty of a crime before you can convict him?

Niki, you're one dangerous person.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by m52nickerson:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Geezer:
So you're saying that the laws of this country should be changed so it's no longer necessary to prove that a person is actually guilty of a crime before you can convict him?

Niki, you're one dangerous person.

---

No, she is saying that laws in Florida should be changed that if you shoot and kill someone and claim self-defense you should have to prove that.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Geezer:
So you're saying that someone should have to prove they're not guilty of a crime to be acquitted?

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by m52nickerson:
Killing people is against the law.

---

Quote:

---

When you admit that you killed someone and you are saying it is justified than you need to provide some evidence of that.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Geezer:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by m52nickerson:
Killing people is against the law.

---

Nope.

Killing people MAY be against the law in certain circumstances. Deciding if you might have violated the law when killing someone is the job of prosecutors. Then they have to convince a jury that you did in fact kill someone in an illegal manner.

Quote:

---

When you admit that you killed someone and you are saying it is justified than you need to provide some evidence of that.

---

Nope again.

When you say you killed someone and it is justified, it is up to the legal system to prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, that you did not have justification.


"When your heart breaks, you choose what to fill the cracks with. Love or hate. But hate won't ever heal. Only love can do that."

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by m52nickerson:
Not in all states. In fact most states, including Florida, self-defence is an affermative defence. Meaning some of the burden of proof is on the accused to prove he was justified in killing the other person. Florida just has set that bar very, very low. You don't get to kill someone and than claim self defence and walk without any evidence to support your claim.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by m52nickerson:
In fact most states, including Florida, self-defence is an affermative defence. Meaning some of the burden of proof is on the accused to prove he was justified in killing the other person. Florida just has set that bar very, very low. You don't get to kill someone and than claim self defence and walk without any evidence to support your claim.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by m52nickerson:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by 1kiki:This is the perfect case for jury nullification. But the jury was too docile, too trusting of 'the man' and 'the system', too eager to meet their duty in an approved 'responsible' way - and the prosecution too seemingly timid in its quest for justice - to result in justice. Instead what it got was a legal result.

---

Even if the Jury would have convicted Zimmerman I doubt he would have spent much time in prison as the result would have been over turned on appeal.

I do not fear God, I fear the ignorance of man.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by 1kiki:
M52

Where was Martin's right to defend himself against an unidentified large white male (who turned out to be armed) who GOT OUT OF HIS CAR for the express purpose of stalking him at night?

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by MAL4PREZ:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by 1kiki:
M52

Where was Martin's right to defend himself against an unidentified large white male (who turned out to be armed) who GOT OUT OF HIS CAR for the express purpose of stalking him at night?

---

Didn't you know? Black people are not allowed to defend themselves, especially against white people, because the white people might become scared.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by 1kiki:
M52

Where was Martin's right to defend himself against an unidentified large white male (who turned out to be armed) who GOT OUT OF HIS CAR for the express purpose of stalking him at night?

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Geezer:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by m52nickerson:
In fact most states, including Florida, self-defence is an affermative defence. Meaning some of the burden of proof is on the accused to prove he was justified in killing the other person. Florida just has set that bar very, very low. You don't get to kill someone and than claim self defence and walk without any evidence to support your claim.

---

Affirmative defense in this instance is pretty much Zimmerman's lawyer saying "It was self-defense". The State has to prove beyond a reasonable doubt it wasn't. Zimmerman's lawyer can produce evidence to substantiate a claim of self defense, but it's still up to the State to prove otherwise. All Zimmerman's lawyer has to do is create enough doubt in the Jury's minds.

If you have cites to show that "Florida just has set that bar very, very low", I'll be glad to look them over.


"When your heart breaks, you choose what to fill the cracks with. Love or hate. But hate won't ever heal. Only love can do that."

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Niki2:
Thank you so much, Nick, you're a breath of fresh air. I saw where this thread was going and wasn't about to take the bait further, so I haven't bothered to come back until now; I appreciate your clarity and yes, everything you said.

But I'd love to investigate further your comment that "Funny thing is I think any law that would have convicted Zimmerman would also be a bad law." I find that fascinating; any law that convicted him of ANY wrongdoing? And if so, why, please. That sounds interesting and like a topic for a real, honest discussion, if we can ignore all the asininity and sniping.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by m52nickerson:
http://www.tampabay.com/news/publicsafety/crime/florida-stand-your-gro
und-law-yields-some-shocking-outcomes-depending-on/1233133

Check out some of the cases here, including cases of shooting people in the back while they where walking away. Sorry, the standard has to be higher than simply saying "I feared for my life."

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Geezer:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by m52nickerson:
http://www.tampabay.com/news/publicsafety/crime/florida-stand-your-gro
und-law-yields-some-shocking-outcomes-depending-on/1233133

Check out some of the cases here, including cases of shooting people in the back while they where walking away. Sorry, the standard has to be higher than simply saying "I feared for my life."

---

Sorry, but when the scare line "One man killed two unarmed people and walked out of jail" links to a story about a 65 year old disabled veteran who was cornered in the cabin of his sailboat by two drunk fellows who threatened to throw him off the boat, I can tell what kind of spin job this is.

And as much as you might hate to hear it, even alleged drug pushers have the right to self-defense.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Niki2:
Thank you for your further explanation, Nick. I understand what you're saying. As that law is written, I see that is enough evidence for Zimmerman to claim self-defense. But you still didn't explain how "any law" that convicted Zimmerman would have been a bad law. Certainly one is entitled to self-defense, and without further proof, that's what it looks like. I see the conundrum, and it's pretty much the one I understood. I would agree that any law which convicted him of murder, or even manslaughter, would be wrong, but what this situation "said" is you can do anything you want, and as long as it LOOKS like you fit the criteria for "self-defense", you get off scott free.

I guess my problem is that men get in fights every day, but unless one of them has a gun and feels free to use it, millions of fights result in millions of bruises, not death. I don't believe Zimmerman's life was in danger, I believe he is responsible for the situation becoming violent, and I think the result was he wasn't held responsible in any way for his actions. I think that is wrong.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by m52nickerson:
The 65 year old had not had a finger laid on him and the only evidence was his word. Two men dead and there killer never even faced trial simple on his word.

---