REAL WORLD EVENT DISCUSSIONS

"George Zimmerman got away with murder, but the law couldn't prove it."

POSTED BY: NIKI2
UPDATED: Friday, August 2, 2013 08:18
SHORT URL:
VIEWED: 7330
PAGE 1 of 2

Sunday, July 28, 2013 8:06 AM

NIKI2

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...


And there it is.
Quote:

"George Zimmerman got away with murder, but you can't get away from God. And at the end of the day, he's going to have a lot of questions and answers he has to deal with," Maddy told ABC. "[But] the law couldn't prove it."

"…they give you a booklet that basically tells you the truth, and the truth is that there was nothing that we could do about it," she said. "I feel the verdict was already told." http://abcnews.go.com/US/george-zimmerman-juror-murder/story?id=197706
59



Juror B29.

They couldn't convict UNDER FLORIDA LAW. Congratulations, ALEC, NRA and gun manufacturers.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, July 28, 2013 8:13 AM

NIKI2

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...





NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, July 28, 2013 8:14 AM

NIKI2

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...





NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, July 28, 2013 8:14 AM

NIKI2

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...





NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, July 28, 2013 8:15 AM

NIKI2

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...





NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, July 28, 2013 8:16 AM

NIKI2

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...





NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, July 28, 2013 8:16 AM

NIKI2

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...





NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, July 28, 2013 8:40 AM

KWICKO

"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false." -- William Casey, Reagan's presidential campaign manager & CIA Director (from first staff meeting in 1981)





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...








"I supported Bush in 2000 and 2004 and intellegence [sic] had very little to do with that decision." - Hero

"I was wrong" - Hero, 2012

Mitt Romney, introducing his running mate: "Join me in welcoming the next President of the United States, Paul Ryan!"

Rappy's response? "You're lying, gullible ( believing in some BS you heard on msnbc ) or hard of hearing."

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, July 28, 2013 10:48 AM

OONJERAH


Friday, Slate: Did George Zimmerman Get Away With Murder?
The media are reporting that a juror says Zimmerman is guilty of murder.
That’s not true.
By William Saletan
http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/frame_game/2013/07/did
_george_zimmerman_get_away_with_murder_no_juror_b29_is_being_framed.html


I think GZ got away with murder. A lotta people do.
With the amount of controversy & venom around T. Martin's death
and the due process, "fair trial" of GZ ... jurors wanna keep their
mouths shut.
Whatever they say in public, it's gonna be misquoted, embellished,
spun & sure to embarrass.


=========================>
"Oooh. Guns! Guns! Guns!!" Clarence Boddicker, Robocop

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, July 28, 2013 11:39 AM

NIKI2

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...


I read the article, Oonj...it is FAR more "manipulated and misrepresented" than they claim the editing of the interview was. They started right out with a blatant lie: "The media are reporting that a juror says Zimmerman is guilty of murder. That’s not true." She did say, quite clearly, "George Zimmerman got away with murder". Ergo, he committed the act of murder, whether the law as it is written in Florida allowed the jury to say so or not. So it starts right off with a lie.

They write "She’s been framed as the woman who was bullied out of voting to convict Zimmerman. But that’s not true. She stands by the verdict. She yielded to the evidence and the law, not to bullying. She thinks Zimmerman was morally culpable but not legally guilty." I saw no "framing" of her having been "bullied", I haven't seen that anywhere; she was quite clear. UNDER THE LAW, AS FLORIDA HAS ADOPTED IT, there would have had to have been considerable evidence that Zimmerman deliberately murdered Martin. There was not; nobody else was there, they can't ABSOLUTELY PROVE that Zimmerman fired on Martin with the intent of killing him, and because of the way the law is in Florida, nothing less would suffice. Since he could not be held accountable for the specific of murder or manslaughter, he could not be held accountable for his actions.

They write that the words "got away with murder" was PUT IN HER MOUTH. It most definitely was not. She has free will, to the question “Some people have said, ‘George Zimmerman got away with murder. How do you respond to those people who say that?’ ”, she was perfectly capable of saying "No", but they quote her quite specifically saying “… George Zimmerman … That’s—George Zimmerman got away with murder. But you can’t get away from God.”

They go on to ASSUME what she's thinking, they essentially READ HER MIND: "You have to watch her, not just read her words, to pick up her meaning." I think her words are quite clear and understandable, and I didn't read where (contrary to what they intimate) ANYONE questioned whether she stands by the verdict or not.

What she's saying, and she said it over and over and over, is that they had no choice GIVEN THE WAY THE LAW IS WRITTEN. "because by the law and the way it was followed is the way I went", "I stand by the decision because of the law", "as the law was read to me, if you have no proof that he killed him intentionally, you can’t say he’s guilty", "the choices that they gave us". She repeated it over and over enough times that it should be quite clear what she's saying. The law left them no way to hold him accountable for his actions. That's precisely the intent ALEC and the NRA had in writing the law the way they did.

It's a weak attempt to separate morality from "the law", and it fails on just that point. Should not our laws reflect the simple morality that stalking an innocent person, with a gun but no legal authority, when told not to BY the authorities, and killing them, is wrong? I never thought Zimmerman should have been convicted of murder, even second degree, but should he not have been held accountable to some degree? That he was not held accountable to any degree whatsoever for killing someone who was innocently going about his life, when that killing WAS PROVEN to have been preceded by irresponsible actions on his part, should tell us clearly that there is a gulf between our morality and the law as it is written in Florida.

I find this a fallacious argument attempting to justify the "rightness" of a "justice" system which most people should easily understand failed its people. PRECISELY in the way it was written to fail them by those who wrote it.


NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, July 28, 2013 4:57 PM

1KIKI

Goodbye, kind world (George Monbiot) - In common with all those generations which have contemplated catastrophe, we appear to be incapable of understanding what confronts us.


What she is saying is that Zimmerman's actions were lethally immoral, but legal.

Ergo, the law is bad.

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.

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, July 29, 2013 2:55 AM

NIKI2

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...


Sigh...you put me to shame, Kiki...in a couple of sentences what I went on and on trying to explain. Thank you.


NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, July 29, 2013 7:47 AM

PENQUIN11


To be fair Zimmerman was wounded at the scene of the crime, photos from the scene of the arrest show Zimmerman as having several head wounds. I don't think Martin was as innocent as everyone is making him out to be, and certainly isn't as innocent as the media has been playing out.

Also I don't get what your problem with guns are. Guns don't make people make bad decisions, people make bad decisions. Banning guns because of incidents such as these would be like blaming cars for DUI's, alcohol related crashes, or just general crashes. And a hell of allot more people die because of car crashes every year than do those who die because of crimes involving guns.


"But who prays for Satan? Who, in eighteen centuries, has had the common humanity to pray for the one sinner that needed it the most?"- Mark Twain

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, July 29, 2013 7:52 AM

NIKI2

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...


I've not paid much attention to the media's depictions, and I never thought Martin was necessarily a complete innocent. My opinion came from the fact that Martin was walking home bothering nobody,m Zimmerman stalked him, was told to leave him alone, continued to stalk him, and Martin ended up dead. I believe Zimmerman should have been held to account in some way for his actions. That's just my opinion.


NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, July 29, 2013 7:56 AM

PENQUIN11


I honestly don't even know enough about the event to develop a opinion on the case, however I will say that the media has been particularly biased on the issue.

That being said I am awaiting a response to my gun inquiry.


"But who prays for Satan? Who, in eighteen centuries, has had the common humanity to pray for the one sinner that needed it the most?"- Mark Twain

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, July 29, 2013 8:10 AM

GEEZER

Keep the Shiny side up


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."


Yep. Damn Florida law. If you can't prove he did it, you can't say he's guilty. Need to get that fixed.


"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."

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, July 29, 2013 8:28 AM

NIKI2

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...


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.


NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, July 29, 2013 8:37 AM

GEEZER

Keep the Shiny side up


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.




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.


"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."

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, July 29, 2013 10:52 AM

AURAPTOR

America loves a winner!


Get over it.

Fathom the hypocrisy of a government that requires every citizen to prove they are insured... but not everyone must prove they are a citizen

Resident USA Freedom Fundie

" AU, that was great, LOL!! " - Chrisisall

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, July 29, 2013 3:19 PM

NIKI2

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...


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

Do you guys ever have an actual, honest discussion...are you even capable of that?


NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, July 29, 2013 4:59 PM

OONJERAH



Honest discussions are for people who want to communicate.
A respectful sharing of views & ideas. Even feelings sometimes.
Requires honest listening (a nearly lost art?) as well as honest
speaking.


=========================

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, July 29, 2013 6:04 PM

1KIKI

Goodbye, kind world (George Monbiot) - In common with all those generations which have contemplated catastrophe, we appear to be incapable of understanding what confronts us.


PQ

On the one hand you express an opinion: "I don't think Martin was as innocent as everyone is making him out to be, and certainly isn't as innocent as the media has been playing out." On the other hand, you say you don't know enough to have one: "I honestly don't even know enough about the event to develop a opinion on the case ...". And then you go on to express another opinion: " I will say that the media has been particularly biased on the issue." So which is it? Do you have an opinion you wish to express, or do you not have one?

As for this: "Also I don't get what your problem with guns are. Guns don't make people make bad decisions, people make bad decisions. Banning guns because of incidents such as these ..." Who exactly are you replying to? Did anyone post anything about banning guns?

It's really very difficult to reply to you b/c your posts are all over the map.





NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, July 29, 2013 6:08 PM

1KIKI

Goodbye, kind world (George Monbiot) - In common with all those generations which have contemplated catastrophe, we appear to be incapable of understanding what confronts us.


"Yep. Damn Florida law. If you can't prove he did it, you can't say he's guilty. Need to get that fixed."


Nope, not what she posted. Please learn to read.

ENJOY YOUR NEXT FOUR YEARS!

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA - HERE'S LAUGHING AT YOU OLD FART!


To little rappy from Chris,IsAll: "you are merely a fucking asshole. Quote THAT, you sad little fascist biological reality"

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, July 30, 2013 1:52 AM

AURAPTOR

America loves a winner!


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...




Taking the juror's words out of context, only highlighting part of what was said ?

How about - "But we had to grab our hearts and put it aside and look at the evidence." ?


* She said the jury was following Florida law and the evidence, she said, did not prove murder

* Despite the prosecution's claim the Zimmerman profiled Martin because he was black, Maddy said the case was never about race to her, although she didn't want to speak for her fellow jurors.


And in the end, laws are what separate us from a mob mentality. Seems some where would love to continue on w/ the lynchings of the past. It would be as unjust now as it was then.



From another thread, THIS thread is what is meant by " freaking out " .




Fathom the hypocrisy of a government that requires every citizen to prove they are insured... but not everyone must prove they are a citizen

Resident USA Freedom Fundie

" AU, that was great, LOL!! " - Chrisisall

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, July 30, 2013 3:07 AM

GEEZER

Keep the Shiny side up


Quote:

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



Sorry, Niki,but not a twist.

I quoted the juror on Florida law:

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."


you said,
Quote:

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


Since that's the Florida law(as described by the juror) that says you can't convict someone without proof, seems pretty straightforward to me.

If you were talking about some other Florida law, please let us know what it is.


"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."

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, July 30, 2013 3:15 AM

NIKI2

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...


Yup, Kiki. Boy, does Rap have a strange definition of "freaking out"! I see no exclamation points, no going off the rails, merely a discussion...but then, that goes to what Oonj said where he's concerned, as well as Geezer:
Quote:

A respectful sharing of views & ideas. Even feelings sometimes. Requires honest listening (a nearly lost art?) as well as honest speaking.

You both fully understand what I've said, but gawd forbid they be honest about it or actually "discuss" it. Others converse about the nuances, the rights and wrongs of a particular law which was put on the books for a very specific purpose, and all they can do is snipe. No surprise there. As usual; why bother?



NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, July 30, 2013 4:20 AM

GEEZER

Keep the Shiny side up


Quote:

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



Yep.

You said that since the law didn't give the result you wanted, based on your biases, the law should be changed.

I say that I accept the verdict of the jury, who had lots more information about the case than you or I did. If they had found Zimmerman guilty of 2nd degree murder or manslaughter, I'd have accepted that too.

That's actually my takeaway from the juror's comments.

Although she obviously wanted Zimmerman to be guilty of something, she had enough understanding of the legal system to realize that you have to have actual proof beyond a reasonable doubt before you can convict someone. That's the point of the legal system. Feelings don't count. Proof does. If the level of proof doesn't go beyond a reasonable doubt, you must acquit.

You keep talking somewhat vaguely about "bad law" but you have failed to define it. Tell us what you think the "bad law" is and we can discuss it. Otherwise you're just in sore loser territory.


"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."

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, July 30, 2013 4:49 AM

AURAPTOR

America loves a winner!


Niki - pretending that cartoons which bear false witness & / or offer a false narrative on the topic isn't the same as " freaking out " is laughable. Even for you.

You're neither being honest here or trying to have a serious discussion. Sad if you think that this counts.



Fathom the hypocrisy of a government that requires every citizen to prove they are insured... but not everyone must prove they are a citizen

Resident USA Freedom Fundie

" AU, that was great, LOL!! " - Chrisisall

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, July 30, 2013 7:17 AM

M52NICKERSON

DALEK!


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 prision as the result would have been over turned on appeal.

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

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, July 30, 2013 7:21 AM

M52NICKERSON

DALEK!


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.

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

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, July 30, 2013 7:55 AM

GEEZER

Keep the Shiny side up


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.




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


"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."

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, July 30, 2013 8:13 AM

M52NICKERSON

DALEK!


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?



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

Funny thing is I think any law that would have convicted Zimmerman would also be a bad law. There are much worse cases of stand your ground in Florida than the Zimmerman case.

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

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, July 30, 2013 9:45 AM

GEEZER

Keep the Shiny side up


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."

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, July 30, 2013 10:11 AM

M52NICKERSON

DALEK!


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."



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.

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

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, July 30, 2013 10:29 AM

OONJERAH


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.




I dunno. But that makes sense to me.


========================:>

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, July 30, 2013 11:49 AM

GEEZER

Keep the Shiny side up


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."

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, July 30, 2013 12:58 PM

1KIKI

Goodbye, kind world (George Monbiot) - In common with all those generations which have contemplated catastrophe, we appear to be incapable of understanding what confronts us.


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 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.




As I have repeated over, and over, and over ... - apparently to illiterate people who seem to be unable to read - the problem with the law is that it changes the nature of what could be considered 'defense'. Whether or not YOU STARTED IT all you have to do is claim fear, and that wipes away any potential of guilt.

Generally laws take the larger context into account, as they should. If a large man with a restraining order against him goes to his ex's house and shoots the unarmed, slight female dead, it can be taken as evidence of premeditation, and not self-defense, as it should.

One of the many problems with the law is that it removes context from the claim of self-defense - all one can consider is the IMMEDIATE perception of danger - as claimed by the person left alive.


What I would like is a re-trial. Not enough was made of Rachel Jeantel's testimony that Zimmerman stalked Martin, and that Martin's words before the sound of scuffling were 'get off me'.

BTW, the way the court was run was a shambles for the prosecution. The defense made the witness repeat her testimony over, and over, and over, and over, and over ... then picked on small discrepancies between the second and the fifth time she told the story. It was like a lampoon of a police grilling rather than the taking of testimony on the witness stand. They complained - for the first time in the trial - that there was an obstruction between their chair and the witness stand and they couldn't see the witness. That whole repeated rearranging of seating during testimony was extremely disruptive. The court recorder played a part too, apparently unable to keep up with a normal speaking cadence. She kept asking for repeats as well with partial quotes, which the defense then echoed, causing multiple reiterations by multiple people. They could not have stooped any lower to torpedo what should have been a simple testimony of very vital information on the stand. And the prosecution raised no objection to it.




NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, July 30, 2013 2:29 PM

NIKI2

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...


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.


NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, July 30, 2013 6:08 PM

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.

*I cannot believe I live in this world*

*---------------------------------------*
The French Revolution would have never happened if Marie Antoinette had just given every peasant an iPhone.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, July 30, 2013 6:18 PM

AURAPTOR

America loves a winner!


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.



Zimmerman wasn't stalking anyone. He got out to see where TM was, and then was heading back to his car when TM jumped / attacked him. Unprovoked. GZ had posed no threat to TM, at all. It was he, not GZ who stalked and sought out a violent confrontation.

If only idiots would get their facts straight, and not keep perpetuating lies that fulfill their agenda driven narrative.

Fathom the hypocrisy of a government that requires every citizen to prove they are insured... but not everyone must prove they are a citizen

Resident USA Freedom Fundie

" AU, that was great, LOL!! " - Chrisisall

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, July 31, 2013 1:33 AM

M52NICKERSON

DALEK!


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?



There is no law against or anything wrong with approaching someone in your own neighborhood to ask what they are doing there. Now I have said that Zimmerman may have very well been in the wrong and started the confrontation by grabbing Martin, however that can't be proved.

What was shown to be the case was that Martin was on top of Zimmerman and Zimmerman had been injured. That is more than enough evidence for a self defense claim when you have no evidence of wrong doing by Zimmerman.

People who can read the law correctly and do not have a bias understand that you can start an altercation as long as you don't break the law while doing so. Zimmerman could not be shown to be breaking any law. You can say he stalked Martin, but stalking statutes have a repeated element to them, this was not the case.

Also before you try and make the claim the law covers people while commiting crimes look...

"Holder deliberated for 15 minutes before ruling that the "stand your ground" law didn't apply. Jones was committing a crime at the time, he said, and even if he hadn't been, the testimony didn't show he was in mortal danger. He said Jones would stand trial Monday for attempted second-degree murder and aggravated battery with a firearm. Neither Jones nor Drake faces drug charges."

http://www.tampabay.com/news/courts/criminal/accused-shooter-loses-sta
nd-your-ground-argument-involving-botched-drug/1228552


You can also read the Jury instruction from Zimmerman's case which makes it clear,

"If George Zimmerman was not engaged in an unlawful activity and was attacked in anyplace where he had a right to be, he had no duty to retreat and had the right to stand hisground and meet force with force, including deadly force if he reasonably believed that it wasnecessary to do so to prevent death or great bodily harm to himself or another or to preventthe commission of a forcible felony."

http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2013/07/12/201410108/read-instruct
ions-for-the-jury-in-trial-of-george-zimmerman



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

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, July 31, 2013 1:48 AM

M52NICKERSON

DALEK!


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."



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."


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

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, July 31, 2013 2:01 AM

M52NICKERSON

DALEK!


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.





Looking at the evidence presented in the case we know that Martin was on top of Zimmerman when he was shot. An eye witness testified to this and one medical examiner testified that the gun shot to Martin matched this claim.

This plus the injuries to Zimmerman are about the only hard evidence we have of the confrontation. I don't think it is to wild to think a person should be able to defend themselves if they have someone on top of them trying to beat them. Do you?

Now that is giving Zimmerman all the benefit of doubt, which is something we should like in the law. However shoot a person in the back who is walking away or an an armed person who does not get near you is a stretch and there should be the need for some hard evidence that person was really a threat.


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

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, July 31, 2013 2:57 AM

NIKI2

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...


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.


NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, July 31, 2013 6:48 AM

GEEZER

Keep the Shiny side up


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.


"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."

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, July 31, 2013 7:53 AM

M52NICKERSON

DALEK!


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.



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.



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

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, July 31, 2013 7:58 AM

NIKI2

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...


You might want to edit that sentence, NewOld, the grammar is pretty convoluted. ;o) But the statement is pretty horrific.

In other words, if I invite someone over, and maybe get them drunk to help my story, I could kill them and say I did it in self-defense, if there are no witnesses or evidence to the contrary.


NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, July 31, 2013 8:05 AM

M52NICKERSON

DALEK!


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.




I think it is wrong as well because I share your belief that Zimmerman started the fight. The question is what if we are wrong? Guilty people are going to avoid justice no matter the laws. The question is what is worse, letting a guilty man go free, or jailing an innocent man?

Perhaps the laws could take into account imperfect self defense, as it does in some places. The problem with that is again if Zimmerman really is innocent he would be punished to making a decision that at the time he thought was needed. Hindsight is always 20/20, but in a situation like that who is to say that you or I would not have pulled that trigger?


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

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, July 31, 2013 8:13 AM

NIKI2

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...


I can't know the precise situation, obviously. I only know that Zimmerman's wounds weren't life threatening, he had a gun, and logic dictates Martin shouldn't have lost his life for walking home bothering nobody. It is my own opinion that knowing the law and having the mentality that numerous things have shown I believe he had, Zimmerman felt okay with shooting Martin. That should not be.

"The question is what is worse, letting a guilty man go free, or jailing an innocent man?" I don't think that's the question. The only thing I can reply to that question is "a man in jail is still alive". But the real question for me is whether we should allow laws to be passed which reflect the agenda of special interests which result in the death of innocent people.


NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, July 31, 2013 8:20 AM

GEEZER

Keep the Shiny side up


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.



So you have to let the other guys try to kill you first?


"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."

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

YOUR OPTIONS

NEW POSTS TODAY

USERPOST DATE

OTHER TOPICS

DISCUSSIONS
In the garden, and RAIN!!! (2)
Thu, March 28, 2024 14:12 - 3411 posts
Well... He was no longer useful to the DNC or the Ukraine Money Laundering Scheme... So justice was served
Thu, March 28, 2024 12:44 - 1 posts
Elections; 2024
Thu, March 28, 2024 11:18 - 2071 posts
BUILD BACK BETTER!
Thu, March 28, 2024 11:16 - 6 posts
Salon: NBC's Ronna blunder: A failed attempt to appeal to MAGA voters — except they hate her too
Thu, March 28, 2024 07:04 - 1 posts
Russia Invades Ukraine. Again
Thu, March 28, 2024 05:27 - 6154 posts
Russian losses in Ukraine
Wed, March 27, 2024 23:21 - 987 posts
human actions, global climate change, global human solutions
Wed, March 27, 2024 15:03 - 824 posts
NBC News: Behind the scenes, Biden has grown angry and anxious about re-election effort
Wed, March 27, 2024 14:58 - 2 posts
RFK Jr. Destroys His Candidacy With VP Pick?
Wed, March 27, 2024 11:59 - 16 posts
Russia says 60 dead, 145 injured in concert hall raid; Islamic State group claims responsibility
Wed, March 27, 2024 10:57 - 49 posts
Ha. Haha! HAHA! HAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAAHAHA!!!!!!
Tue, March 26, 2024 21:26 - 1 posts

FFF.NET SOCIAL