George Zimmerman Trial Thread (Found Not Guilty Jesus help us...)
Options
Comments
-
I see that some artists said they ain't performing in florida until they change the law.
There's nothing wrong with the "Stand Your Ground," law. If anything it's needed more than ever because some random white folks are going to feel as if they have a green light to arbitrarily ? with black people, instigate a fight, pop said black person, then get acquitted of the charges if they're even indicted at all. ? have to remember that self-defense statues work both ways.Oh, and people who stand for Tray should also look at this Boycott Florida Tourism petition.
http://petitions.moveon.org/sign/boycott-florida-tourism.fb28?source=s.fb&r_by=6115185
Rex STRONGLY SUPPORTS AND COURAGES anybody who doesn't condone this fuckery to get serious and boycott Florida for a year, to maybe a year and half. That means not ? with a lot of ? we like, Disney, the Heat, (sorry Lebron, D Wade, and Bosh, but ? need to make a statement. No trips to spring break and for ? like me that means not supporting Marvel movies or buying Marvel products.Wild Willie in the A wrote: »So I guess Jimmy Carter is racist now too??
http://www.ajc.com/weblogs/political-insider/2013/jul/17/unexpected-word-jimmy-carter-zimmerman-jury-was-ri/
An unexpected word from Jimmy Carter: The Zimmerman jury was right
By Jim Galloway and Daniel Malloy
In an interview with Brenda Wood of 11Alive last night, former President Jimmy Carter swam upstream against many other Democrats, declaring that the jury that refused to convict George Zimmerman for the death of 17-year-old Trayvon Martin was right.
The former president put the blame on the prosecution. Said Carter:
"I think the jury made the right decision based in the evidence presented, because the prosecution inadvertently set the standard so high that the jury had to be convinced that it was a deliberate act by Zimmerman and that he was not defending himself and so forth. It's not a moral question, it was a legal question and the American law requires that the jury listens to the evidence presented."
On the racial aspects of the trial:
Like I said before and Pres. Carter confirms it, the Special Prosecutor, (I've recently found out that it was a special prosecutor that was appointed by Florida's governor,) that indicted Zimmer, (so you know the ? had an agenda,) overcharged Zimmerman and people with knowledge of the law knows this.“I can’t allege that the six jurors, all of whom are women, are not just as sensitive about the race issue as I am. Or that you are. I don’t know them. But the judge warned them over and over that they had to listen to the evidence only, not to their own feelings about race. And since neither side [was] willing to bring in the race issue, I think – as far as the jury was concerned – they could not consider that.”
All of those subconscious stereotypes about black males can into play. Why is that Zimmerman can instigate a situation, start getting his ass whooped, overreact and not be held accountable for it?
[/quote]
Once and for all,
zim didn't get off because of "the laws"
zim didn't get off because of a weak prosectuion (although they were weak)
zim didn't get off because the defense was the goat
zim got off simply because of the jury was a bunch of scary women, 5 of whom were white and the last is suspected to be hispanic. This trial was the equivalent of a black man on trial in the south during the 1800s
The fact that Trayvon was young, black and fit the image of a "scary thug" in their mind, was the reason for their decision. He was acquitted due to fear.
How do you admit zim story sounded embellished and FABRICATED but you still give him the pass? Juror B37 is an idiot and I bet omara,west or her lawyer husband told her to SFTU and that's why she "changed her mind" on the book and all of a sudden wants privacy. Naw ? you was all over a few days ago.
Dude, all of those factors come into play because the prosecution blazed a trail that it wanted the jurors to tread upon.
Once and for all, zim didn't get off because of "the laws"
Dude, this is the secondary why Zimmerman walked. Like Pres. Carter said, "the prosecution set an incredibly high standard for themselves." These are trained professionals who have gone through three years of law, possibly participated on their high schools, colleges, and law schools, moot court and mock trial trials, interned, on top of years of experience with D. A.'s office. You mean to tell me that they didn't know from jump they knew the M2 was excessive and they lacked the proper evidence to prove it beyond a reasonable doubt at trial? You my friend at putting too much faith in the fact that prosecutors had Trayvon best interest at heart.
zim didn't get off because of a weak prosectuion (although they were weak)
You're implying that the jury had pre-determined decision in mind which isn't true. The initial vote was
Two for acquittal
Two for the manslaughter beef
Two for the Murder 2
Now if the prosecution had argued the correct points, such as the angle of the gun, how does getting you ass whooped in a fight justified being killed and how excessive the act was. The outcome would have probably been different. You don't give people the opportunity the give into their predjuices and biases.
-
I had my facts wrong. Trayvon's body wasn't found 40 feet from the car, it was found 40 feet from where Zimmerman claims the altercation happened. Here is a map of where Zimmerman claims it happened and where Trayvon's body was found. http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023274981
That map shows he got out of his car and walked a long ways and got behind in between what looks like an apartment complex. He said he was looking for a street address. This appears to be the back way Jeantel mentioned Trayvon was traveling. It looks like he went directly to the area where he saw Trayvon run so that he could give an address as to where Trayvon was. We know he was following him up to this point. He says he turned around after dispatch told him to, and claimed that's when Trayvon attacked him.
-
Maximus Rex wrote: »Two for acquittal
Two for the manslaughter beef
Two for the Murder 2
I thought it was three for acquittal, one for manslaughter, one for murder 2.
-
Maximus Rex wrote: »I see that some artists said they ain't performing in florida until they change the law.
There's nothing wrong with the "Stand Your Ground," law. If anything it's needed more than ever because some random white folks are going to feel as if they have a green light to arbitrarily ? with black people, instigate a fight, pop said black person, then get acquitted of the charges if they're even indicted at all. ? have to remember that self-defense statues work both ways.Oh, and people who stand for Tray should also look at this Boycott Florida Tourism petition.
http://petitions.moveon.org/sign/boycott-florida-tourism.fb28?source=s.fb&r_by=6115185
Rex STRONGLY SUPPORTS AND COURAGES anybody who doesn't condone this fuckery to get serious and boycott Florida for a year, to maybe a year and half. That means not ? with a lot of ? we like, Disney, the Heat, (sorry Lebron, D Wade, and Bosh, but ? need to make a statement. No trips to spring break and for ? like me that means not supporting Marvel movies or buying Marvel products.Wild Willie in the A wrote: »So I guess Jimmy Carter is racist now too??
http://www.ajc.com/weblogs/political-insider/2013/jul/17/unexpected-word-jimmy-carter-zimmerman-jury-was-ri/
An unexpected word from Jimmy Carter: The Zimmerman jury was right
By Jim Galloway and Daniel Malloy
In an interview with Brenda Wood of 11Alive last night, former President Jimmy Carter swam upstream against many other Democrats, declaring that the jury that refused to convict George Zimmerman for the death of 17-year-old Trayvon Martin was right.
The former president put the blame on the prosecution. Said Carter:
"I think the jury made the right decision based in the evidence presented, because the prosecution inadvertently set the standard so high that the jury had to be convinced that it was a deliberate act by Zimmerman and that he was not defending himself and so forth. It's not a moral question, it was a legal question and the American law requires that the jury listens to the evidence presented."
On the racial aspects of the trial:
Like I said before and Pres. Carter confirms it, the Special Prosecutor, (I've recently found out that it was a special prosecutor that was appointed by Florida's governor,) that indicted Zimmer, (so you know the ? had an agenda,) overcharged Zimmerman and people with knowledge of the law knows this.“I can’t allege that the six jurors, all of whom are women, are not just as sensitive about the race issue as I am. Or that you are. I don’t know them. But the judge warned them over and over that they had to listen to the evidence only, not to their own feelings about race. And since neither side [was] willing to bring in the race issue, I think – as far as the jury was concerned – they could not consider that.”
All of those subconscious stereotypes about black males can into play. Why is that Zimmerman can instigate a situation, start getting his ass whooped, overreact and not be held accountable for it?Once and for all,
zim didn't get off because of "the laws"
zim didn't get off because of a weak prosectuion (although they were weak)
zim didn't get off because the defense was the goat
zim got off simply because of the jury was a bunch of scary women, 5 of whom were white and the last is suspected to be hispanic. This trial was the equivalent of a black man on trial in the south during the 1800s
The fact that Trayvon was young, black and fit the image of a "scary thug" in their mind, was the reason for their decision. He was acquitted due to fear.
How do you admit zim story sounded embellished and FABRICATED but you still give him the pass? Juror B37 is an idiot and I bet omara,west or her lawyer husband told her to SFTU and that's why she "changed her mind" on the book and all of a sudden wants privacy. Naw ? you was all over a few days ago.
Dude, all of those factors come into play because the prosecution blazed a trail that it wanted the jurors to tread upon.
Once and for all, zim didn't get off because of "the laws"
Dude, this is the secondary why Zimmerman walked. Like Pres. Carter said, "the prosecution set an incredibly high standard for themselves." These are trained professionals who have gone through three years of law, possibly participated on their high schools, colleges, and law schools, moot court and mock trial trials, interned, on top of years of experience with D. A.'s office. You mean to tell me that they didn't know from jump they knew the M2 was excessive and they lacked the proper evidence to prove it beyond a reasonable doubt at trial? You my friend at putting too much faith in the fact that prosecutors had Trayvon best interest at heart.
zim didn't get off because of a weak prosectuion (although they were weak)
You're implying that the jury had pre-determined decision in mind which isn't true. The initial vote was
Two for acquittal
Two for the manslaughter beef
Two for the Murder 2
Now if the prosecution had argued the correct points, such as the angle of the gun, how does getting you ass whooped in a fight justified being killed and how excessive the act was. The outcome would have probably been different. You don't give people the opportunity the give into their predjuices and biases.
[/quote]
How can you stop someone from using their personal thoughts/opinions/beliefs/prejudices? You can't. No matter how many times you say disregard or how many times the topic is stricken from the record. Those chicks were scared at the end of the day and it played into their final decision.
The people claiming the overcharge stuff are the same people that said the crime fit manslaughter and would have been a slam dunk case. Well they had the option to charge him with manslaughter and didn't.
Again, the statements from B37 tells it all. Listen to her interview
The initial vote was
1 2nd degree murder
2 manslaughter
3 not guilty
-
can'tyoutell wrote: »I had my facts wrong. Trayvon's body wasn't found 40 feet from the car, it was found 40 feet from where Zimmerman claims the altercation happened. Here is a map of where Zimmerman claims it happened and where Trayvon's body was found. http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023274981
That map shows he got out of his car and walked a long ways and got behind in between what looks like an apartment complex. He said he was looking for a street address. This appears to be the back way Jeantel mentioned Trayvon was traveling. It looks like he went directly to the area where he saw Trayvon run so that he could give an address as to where Trayvon was. We know he was following him up to this point. He says he turned around after dispatch told him to, and claimed that's when Trayvon attacked him.
Right. Again this is the ? these women totally ignored when the prosecution brought it up, not that they did some outstanding job. Zim lied time and time again so how can they turn around give credibility to his self defense claim?
-
Here's the problem with your argument as I highlighted with the pigeon example.can'tyoutell wrote: »Your analogy is missing the fact that the pigeon was following the bird before we stopped observing.
proof
[proof] Show IPA
noun
1.
evidence sufficient to establish a thing as true, or to produce belief in its truth.
We have evidence that he was pursuing Trayvon before the call ended. We know he got out of his car. He started walking, he even says this himself. An altercation happens 40 feet from his car. This clearly demonstrates he was following him. There are no reasonable alternatives to explain these facts.
The alternative is he got out of the car to look at the street sign. That's the alternative. That's what he said, and that is the only other possibility for this particular case. Now let me show you, again, why I ruled out that alternative. I have a part time driving job right now, where I have to remember lots of streets. When I come to street I don't know, I don't park 40 feet away to look at it. I can either drive up close to look at it, or drive up close to it, get out, and then look at it (never done the latter.) If it is dark and I have to find an address and can't see them on houses, I may get out to get a closer look. Zimmerman wasn't looking for an address, he was checking the street sign. This alternative can safely be ruled out. It just does not make as much sense as the other version of the story.
Observed/Testified: Zimmerman can be heard getting out of his car (point 3) during the non-emergency call. He was asked if he was following Treyvon and said "Yeah".
Unknown: It is not known how far he traveled from point 3 during this time.
Observed/Testified: Treyvon lost Zimmerman as he ran.
Unknown: It is not known how far Zimmerman or Treyvon traveled during this time.
Observed/Testified: At least 3 minutes and 52 seconds pass between the time Zimmerman says "He ran" and the time Treyvon's call with Rachel Jeantel disconnects as she hears the beginning of the confrontation at point 5.
Unknown: The locations, traveling paths, and traveling speeds of Zimmerman or Treyvon during the time leading up to the confrontation are not known.
So, despite all of these unknowns, you're assuming that the only possible scenario was for Zimmerman to walk directly from point 3 to point 5 in the during the 4-5 minutes between him being asked if he was following Treyvon till the time the confrontation occurred? And Treyvon could only travel from point 4 to point 5 during the 4-5 minutes that passed, despite him running according to Zimmerman during the non-emergency call and according to Rachel Jeantel's testimony?
You're claiming Zimmerman had to take 4-5 minutes to travel 40 feet?
(40 ft/300 seconds)*12 inches=1.6 inches/second
(40 ft/240 seconds)*12 inches=2 inches/second
This gives Zimmerman an average speed between 1.6 inches per second (0.09MPH) and 2 inches per second (0.11MPH); less than 4 times the speed of a garden snail (Source: Natural History Magazine, March 1974, copyright 1974; The American Museum of Natural History; and James G. Doherty, general curator, The Wildlife Conservation Society).
Making these assumptions--despite so many unknowns--to reach this conclusion is none other than speculation bruh.
Not to mention that the speed required for a direct path here is absurd.
This is why I said it wasn't established. -
If she retreats from the burglar and then returns, the burglar is still in intruder in her home; so she can still use force.Hyde Parke wrote: ».Gold_Certificate wrote: »
The bolded perfectly fits Florida's legal definition of "aggravated assault":Gold_Certificate wrote: »
She claims she feared for her life, fled to the garage, got the gun from her car--instead of leaving--returned, and then fired a shot towards him and his sons as they were leaving.damobb2deep wrote: »Stand Your Ground law doesn't need to change.
Zimmerman just practiced bad judgement that's all.
Yes, it does.
Marissa Alexander only fired a warning shot, and she's going to jail for 20 years for protecting her children.
All because she's Black.
While your child-killing hero goes free.
And shoot first laws are completely archaic and for conservatives who are trigger happy.
That's not stand your ground.
The ? intentionally fired the shot.
she feared 4 her life after he verbally said "im goin 2 ? you"
That's not "stand your ground"; that's "aggravated assault with a firearm".
The man has a history of abuse, dear.
When someone has a history of abuse, and shout threats, it's grounds for defense.
Also, it was a single warning shot that didn't ? him.
And yes, it applies under stand your ground because of his past abusive history and the perceived threat to her well-being.
784.011 Assault.—
(1) An “assault” is an intentional, unlawful threat by word or act to do violence to the person of another, coupled with an apparent ability to do so, and doing some act which creates a well-founded fear in such other person that such violence is imminent.
(2) Whoever commits an assault shall be guilty of a misdemeanor of the second degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082 or s. 775.083.
History.—s. 5, Feb. 10, 1832; RS 2400; GS 3226; RGS 5059; CGL 7161; s. 1, ch. 70-88; s. 729, ch 71-136; s. 17, ch. 74-383; s. 7, ch. 75-298; s. 171, ch. 91-224.
Note.—Former s. 784.02.
784.021 Aggravated assault.—
(1) An “aggravated assault” is an assault:
(a) With a deadly weapon without intent to ? ; or
(b) With an intent to commit a felony.
(2) Whoever commits an aggravated assault shall be guilty of a felony of the third degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084.
History.—s. 2, ch. 3275, 1881; RS 2402; GS 3228; RGS 5061; CGL 7163; s. 1, ch. 29709, 1955; s. 1, ch. 57-345; s. 731, ch. 71-136; s. 18, ch. 74-383; s. 8, ch. 75-298.
Note.—Former s. 784.04.
It doesn't fit "stand your ground", because fleeing to her car counts as retreating from the situation. It would've been under "stand your ground" if she had the gun on her when he first threatened her and shot at him then.
She was also charged with battery for a separate assault on him, months after she shot toward him and his sons; which she plead "no contest" to.
lol. fleeing to her car? I wouldn't call that fleeing. She went to her car, on her property and retrieved the gun. How do you configure that as retreating? by that same logic, if a burgler entered her home and she went to her garage and got her gun and shot him that would also count as retreating? its nonsense either way as the law says no duty to retreat, not that if you do retreat and return then you cant use it as your defense. it says just what it says "no duty to retreat" nothing more, nothing less. The fact remains, is she felt her life was in danger, she acted upon her fear, which under the law, that should have protected her.
The Florida law is a self-defense, self-protection law. It has four key components:...
This is very different from retreating from someone who she claims threatened to ? her and then returning to use force. -
^^^^^^
where/what is the difference? Both actions are operating from the foundation of reasonable fear of imminent peril of death or great ? harm to himself or herself or another, as supported by the law.
retreat would not be the correct term to use when describing either as to retreat means: "to withdraw". Neither of those situations are indicative of retreating. They are only acts that are the result of one who believes they are in fear of their life.
-
Maximus Rex wrote: »Two for acquittal
Two for the manslaughter beef
Two for the Murder 2
I thought it was three for acquittal, one for manslaughter, one for murder 2.
That's what the juror said it was.
-
Hyde Parke wrote: »^^^^^^
where/what is the difference? Both actions are operating from the foundation of reasonable fear of imminent peril of death or great ? harm to himself or herself or another, as supported by the law.
retreat would not be the correct term to use when describing either as to retreat means: "to withdraw". Neither of those situations are indicative of retreating. They are only acts that are the result of one who believes they are in fear of their life.
right
their was some sort of argument which lead to a fight, scared because her abusive husband had just threatened to ? her inside her own home, she ran to get her gun that was inside her car.... i don't see how she retreated and even if she did, i thought under florida law she had the right too
and if im not mistaken she said she did intend to get into her car and leave but the garage door wouldn't open or that she forgot her keys...
smh
guess it would have been better if she ran into the kitchen and grabbed a knife and stabbed him to death -
I just realized that Trayvon was not only a victim of racism, he was also a victim of sexism. Imagine the same set of circumstances involving a female? I the jury would have came back with a guilty verdict because they would have been to identity with the victim and saw Zimmerman as a stalker.
-
The difference is that "imminent peril of death or great ? harm" does not have to be established for an intruder, but it does have to be established for others not in commission of a forcible felony.Hyde Parke wrote: »Gold_Certificate wrote: »If she retreats from the burglar and then returns, the burglar is still in intruder in her home; so she can still use force.
This is very different from retreating from someone who she claims threatened to ? her and then returning to use force.
where/what is the difference? Both actions are operating from the foundation of reasonable fear of imminent peril of death or great ? harm to himself or herself or another, as supported by the law.
retreat would not be the correct term to use when describing either as to retreat means: "to withdraw". Neither of those situations are indicative of retreating. They are only acts that are the result of one who believes they are in fear of their life.
She claims he threatened her in the bathroom, she then left the bathroom to go to the bedroom, he left the bathroom to go to the living room with his sons, she later left the bedroom, walked through the living room with him and his sons, walked past the front door, walked past the back door, went to the garage, got her gun from her glove compartment, reentered the house, aimed the gun towards him and his sons, and fired a shot into the wall.
So she did in fact retreat from the bathroom where she claims the threat occurred.
Furthermore, she says she fired a "warning shot", not a shot to hit the person she felt was threatening her life; which conflicts with her claim that she fired to defend herself from "imminent peril of death or great ? harm".
Supporting this lack of fear, never called 911 to report that she fired a warning shot to scare off the man--and his sons--that she was in fear of "imminent peril of death or great ? harm" from, and she returned to his home multiple times after this incident; even pleading "no contest" to a separate instance where she was charged with "domestic battery" upon him while at his home.
Her own action and claims worked against her claim of "imminent peril of death or great ? harm". -
@Maximus Rex
right
at first i was willing to give the prosecution the benefit of the doubt but its painfully obvious they weren't even trying
1. they didn't do a good job of humanizing trayvon
2. they seemed to have been absent during jury selection
3. their witnesses were ill prepared, unpolished, etc
4. they failed to present the jury with an alternate theory to what may have had happen that night, which is typical protocol
5. thy didn't do a good job of cross examining john goode
6. they didn't place more emphasis on how far the body was found from where gz himself claimed tray punched him then immediately straddled him
7. they didn't make a bigger issue out of the fact that zimmerman decided not to have the police meet him at his car. like some other poster said why did he even have to get outside of his car to find an address ? makes little to no sense what so ever
8. closing argument from the state was weak
9. and most importantly like you said they over charged
really got me to thinking if gz was convicted, the sanford pd, state would have to do a whole lotta 'splainin' why it took so long to make an arrest, file charges
but yea for those who were saddened by the outcome and what to see a change everything should be on the table ....labor strikes, mass sit ins, mass protesting, boycotts etc -
she got the gun from the garage.. she didnt have her keys 4 her car... he followed her 2 the garage... so again she cant "stand her ground"?Gold_Certificate wrote: »
The difference is that "imminent peril of death or great ? harm" does not have to be established for an intruder, but it does have to be established for others not in commission of a forcible felony.Hyde Parke wrote: »Gold_Certificate wrote: »If she retreats from the burglar and then returns, the burglar is still in intruder in her home; so she can still use force.
This is very different from retreating from someone who she claims threatened to ? her and then returning to use force.
where/what is the difference? Both actions are operating from the foundation of reasonable fear of imminent peril of death or great ? harm to himself or herself or another, as supported by the law.
retreat would not be the correct term to use when describing either as to retreat means: "to withdraw". Neither of those situations are indicative of retreating. They are only acts that are the result of one who believes they are in fear of their life.
She claims he threatened her in the bathroom, she then left the bathroom to go to the bedroom, he left the bathroom to go to the living room with his sons, she later left the bedroom, walked through the living room with him and his sons, walked past the front door, walked past the back door, went to the garage, got her gun from her glove compartment, reentered the house, aimed the gun towards him and his sons, and fired a shot into the wall.
So she did in fact retreat from the bathroom where she claims the threat occurred.
Furthermore, she says she fired a "warning shot", not a shot to hit the person she felt was threatening her life; which conflicts with her claim that she fired to defend herself from "imminent peril of death or great ? harm".
Supporting this lack of fear, never called 911 to report that she fired a warning shot to scare off the man--and his sons--that she was in fear of "imminent peril of death or great ? harm" from, and she returned to his home multiple times after this incident; even pleading "no contest" to a separate instance where she was charged with "domestic battery" upon him while at his home.
Her own action and claims worked against her claim of "imminent peril of death or great ? harm".
-
cant embed the video but nice exchange ..mo ivory went in on his ass
http://www.mediaite.com/tv/cnn-guests-explode-over-the-existence-of-white-hispanic-sorry-to-polarize-you-with-a-new-term/ -
According to what?damobb2deep wrote: »
she got the gun from the garage.. she didnt have her keys 4 her car... he followed her 2 the garage... so again she cant "stand her ground"?Gold_Certificate wrote: »
The difference is that "imminent peril of death or great ? harm" does not have to be established for an intruder, but it does have to be established for others not in commission of a forcible felony.Hyde Parke wrote: »Gold_Certificate wrote: »If she retreats from the burglar and then returns, the burglar is still in intruder in her home; so she can still use force.
This is very different from retreating from someone who she claims threatened to ? her and then returning to use force.
where/what is the difference? Both actions are operating from the foundation of reasonable fear of imminent peril of death or great ? harm to himself or herself or another, as supported by the law.
retreat would not be the correct term to use when describing either as to retreat means: "to withdraw". Neither of those situations are indicative of retreating. They are only acts that are the result of one who believes they are in fear of their life.
She claims he threatened her in the bathroom, she then left the bathroom to go to the bedroom, he left the bathroom to go to the living room with his sons, she later left the bedroom, walked through the living room with him and his sons, walked past the front door, walked past the back door, went to the garage, got her gun from her glove compartment, reentered the house, aimed the gun towards him and his sons, and fired a shot into the wall.
So she did in fact retreat from the bathroom where she claims the threat occurred.
Furthermore, she says she fired a "warning shot", not a shot to hit the person she felt was threatening her life; which conflicts with her claim that she fired to defend herself from "imminent peril of death or great ? harm".
Supporting this lack of fear, never called 911 to report that she fired a warning shot to scare off the man--and his sons--that she was in fear of "imminent peril of death or great ? harm" from, and she returned to his home multiple times after this incident; even pleading "no contest" to a separate instance where she was charged with "domestic battery" upon him while at his home.
Her own action and claims worked against her claim of "imminent peril of death or great ? harm".
And she couldn't use "stand your ground", because her own actions and claims exhibited a lack of fear. -
Gold_Certificate wrote: »
The difference is that "imminent peril of death or great ? harm" does not have to be established for an intruder, but it does have to be established for others not in commission of a forcible felony.Hyde Parke wrote: »Gold_Certificate wrote: »If she retreats from the burglar and then returns, the burglar is still in intruder in her home; so she can still use force.
This is very different from retreating from someone who she claims threatened to ? her and then returning to use force.
where/what is the difference? Both actions are operating from the foundation of reasonable fear of imminent peril of death or great ? harm to himself or herself or another, as supported by the law.
retreat would not be the correct term to use when describing either as to retreat means: "to withdraw". Neither of those situations are indicative of retreating. They are only acts that are the result of one who believes they are in fear of their life.
She claims he threatened her in the bathroom, she then left the bathroom to go to the bedroom, he left the bathroom to go to the living room with his sons, she later left the bedroom, walked through the living room with him and his sons, walked past the front door, walked past the back door, went to the garage, got her gun from her glove compartment, reentered the house, aimed the gun towards him and his sons, and fired a shot into the wall.
So she did in fact retreat from the bathroom where she claims the threat occurred.
Furthermore, she says she fired a "warning shot", not a shot to hit the person she felt was threatening her life; which conflicts with her claim that she fired to defend herself from "imminent peril of death or great ? harm".
Supporting this lack of fear, never called 911 to report that she fired a warning shot to scare off the man--and his sons--that she was in fear of "imminent peril of death or great ? harm" from, and she returned to his home multiple times after this incident; even pleading "no contest" to a separate instance where she was charged with "domestic battery" upon him while at his home.
Her own action and claims worked against her claim of "imminent peril of death or great ? harm".
huh? where are you getting your info....haven't been able to find anything on her returning to his home multiple times afterward
the just of what i read is her husband tried to straggled her, she escaped his grip and, instead of leaving out the front door, went into the garage to get into her car...sounds reasonable. but in the confusion of the fight, alexander said she forgot her keys.
so she returns into the house to retrieve her keys and things with the gun in case he tried something again, her husband saw the weapon at his wife’s side and continued to threaten her life. that’s when she said she decided to fire a warning shot
edit: nevermind ... i see that she continued to visit him after she was out on bond -
Got the info from the court document:desertrain10 wrote: »Gold_Certificate wrote: »
The difference is that "imminent peril of death or great ? harm" does not have to be established for an intruder, but it does have to be established for others not in commission of a forcible felony.Hyde Parke wrote: »Gold_Certificate wrote: »If she retreats from the burglar and then returns, the burglar is still in intruder in her home; so she can still use force.
This is very different from retreating from someone who she claims threatened to ? her and then returning to use force.
where/what is the difference? Both actions are operating from the foundation of reasonable fear of imminent peril of death or great ? harm to himself or herself or another, as supported by the law.
retreat would not be the correct term to use when describing either as to retreat means: "to withdraw". Neither of those situations are indicative of retreating. They are only acts that are the result of one who believes they are in fear of their life.
She claims he threatened her in the bathroom, she then left the bathroom to go to the bedroom, he left the bathroom to go to the living room with his sons, she later left the bedroom, walked through the living room with him and his sons, walked past the front door, walked past the back door, went to the garage, got her gun from her glove compartment, reentered the house, aimed the gun towards him and his sons, and fired a shot into the wall.
So she did in fact retreat from the bathroom where she claims the threat occurred.
Furthermore, she says she fired a "warning shot", not a shot to hit the person she felt was threatening her life; which conflicts with her claim that she fired to defend herself from "imminent peril of death or great ? harm".
Supporting this lack of fear, never called 911 to report that she fired a warning shot to scare off the man--and his sons--that she was in fear of "imminent peril of death or great ? harm" from, and she returned to his home multiple times after this incident; even pleading "no contest" to a separate instance where she was charged with "domestic battery" upon him while at his home.
Her own action and claims worked against her claim of "imminent peril of death or great ? harm".
huh? where are you getting your info....haven't been able to find anything on her returning to his home multiple times afterward
the just of what i read is her husband tried to straggled her, she escaped his grip and, instead of leaving out the front door, went into the garage to get into her car...sounds reasonable. but in the confusion of the fight, alexander said she forgot her keys.
so she returns into the house to retrieve her keys and things with the gun in case he tried something again, her husband saw the weapon at his wife’s side and continued to threaten her life. that’s when she said she decided to fire a warning shot
edit: nevermind ... i see that she continued to visit him after she was out on bond
http://www.scribd.com/doc/89763280/Order-Denying-Defendants-Motion-for-Immunity-and-Motion-to-Dismiss
Her story kept changing. At the time of the immunity hearing, the claim was that the garage didn't work; although there was no proof supporting it. -
Gold Certificate-The difference is that "imminent peril of death or great ? harm" does not have to be established for an intruder, but it does have to be established for others not in commission of a forcible felony.
She claims he threatened her in the bathroom, she then left the bathroom to go to the bedroom, he left the bathroom to go to the living room with his sons, she later left the bedroom, walked through the living room with him and his sons, walked past the front door, walked past the back door, went to the garage, got her gun from her glove compartment, reentered the house, aimed the gun towards him and his sons, and fired a shot into the wall.
So she did in fact retreat from the bathroom where she claims the threat occurred.
Furthermore, she says she fired a "warning shot", not a shot to hit the person she felt was threatening her life; which conflicts with her claim that she fired to defend herself from "imminent peril of death or great ? harm".
Supporting this lack of fear, never called 911 to report that she fired a warning shot to scare off the man--and his sons--that she was in fear of "imminent peril of death or great ? harm" from, and she returned to his home multiple times after this incident; even pleading "no contest" to a separate instance where she was charged with "domestic battery" upon him while at his home.
Her own action and claims worked against her claim of "imminent peril of death or great ? harm
all of these actions were operating from within the foundation of fear and can be argued as such. The series of events that led up to the warning shot could easily be established as the fear increasing/escalating.
fear: 1.feeling of anxiety: an unpleasant feeling of anxiety or apprehension caused by the presence or anticipation of danger
2.frightening thought: an idea, thought, or other entity that causes feelings of fear
by definition, this supports the actions she took as a result of that by law. Her not calling 911 can not be used to support her alleged lack of fear as the actions taken as a result there of can vary from person to person. Which is why the law does not give different scenarios regarding such.
What matters is, as you and others have argued on behalf of Zimmerman is what was going thru her mind at the actual moment the shot was fired.
Her children being in the vicinity even further supports her claim as it is very clear she did not intend to cause harm to them.
all of these actions were operating from within the operating principle of fear.
You can disagree with how she handled the situation, as what is going on with the Zimmerman case, but by your own token you would have to concede it is subjective, otherwise you are showing yourself to be very biased for whatever reasons only known to yourself. -
desertrain10 wrote: »Hyde Parke wrote: »^^^^^^
where/what is the difference? Both actions are operating from the foundation of reasonable fear of imminent peril of death or great ? harm to himself or herself or another, as supported by the law.
retreat would not be the correct term to use when describing either as to retreat means: "to withdraw". Neither of those situations are indicative of retreating. They are only acts that are the result of one who believes they are in fear of their life.
right
their was some sort of argument which lead to a fight, scared because her abusive husband had just threatened to ? her inside her own home, she ran to get her gun that was inside her car.... i don't see how she retreated and even if she did, i thought under florida law she had the right too
and if im not mistaken she said she did intend to get into her car and leave but the garage door wouldn't open or that she forgot her keys...
smh
guess it would have been better if she ran into the kitchen and grabbed a knife and stabbed him to death
right. she did not retreat. she was acting on her fear. plain and simple. I doubt if the outcome would have been any different if she had killed him really. the self defense, stand your ground laws are highly favorable when used by white people and the outcome of the majority of them are in their favor. Statistics prove this. Another interesting fact is that it took the jury only 12minutes to find her guilty and we've been discussing it here much longer than that. -
-
Gold Cerificate-And she couldn't use "stand your ground", because her own actions and claims exhibited a lack of fear.
The same could be said of Zimmerman by his own actions regardless of which law he was using to defend what he did. The fact remained that it only mattered at the moment the shot was fired. Doesn't matter if she tried to ? him or not. She felt she was within reasonable fear to fire that shot at that moment and she acted upon that fear which she should have been protected as such under the law. Fear is not something you can shut on and off at will, it is an instinctual survival mechanism. -
desertrain10 wrote: »@Maximus Rex
right
at first i was willing to give the prosecution the benefit of the doubt but its painfully obvious they weren't even trying
1. they didn't do a good job of humanizing trayvon
2. they seemed to have been absent during jury selection
3. their witnesses were ill prepared, unpolished, etc
4. they failed to present the jury with an alternate theory to what may have had happen that night, which is typical protocol
5. thy didn't do a good job of cross examining john goode
6. they didn't place more emphasis on how far the body was found from where gz himself claimed tray punched him then immediately straddled him
7. they didn't make a bigger issue out of the fact that zimmerman decided not to have the police meet him at his car. like some other poster said why did he even have to get outside of his car to find an address ? makes little to no sense what so ever
8. closing argument from the state was weak
9. and most importantly like you said they over charged
really got me to thinking if gz was convicted, the sanford pd, state would have to do a whole lotta 'splainin' why it took so long to make an arrest, file charges
but yea for those who were saddened by the outcome and what to see a change everything should be on the table ....labor strikes, mass sit ins, mass protesting, boycotts etc
Also, when my potna and I were discussing the case, he mentioned that the prosecution "didn't load Zimmerman up." In other words, they didn't charge him with a gang of other ? like they normally do to ensure your conviction. Think about when your ratchet ass family member or somebody you know gets caught up, they're usually have like three to four other charges added on to ensure a conviction. The D. A. will be like, "We'll throw out the main charge if you plead out to this lesser ? ." That's what happened to me when I tried to run that ? ass ? over, I had an assault beef in addition to the assault on a peace offer, when the D. A. part of the deal was to plead out to the assault on the peace officer, they'll drop the assault beef, and upon successfully completion of probation, the whole ? would be dropped to a misdemeanor.
Now with Zimmerman, he was just charged with the M2, when he should have been charged with manslaughter, or this:
(3) A person who causes the death of any person under the age of 18 by culpable negligence under s. 827.03(3) commits aggravated manslaughter of a child, a felony of the first degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084.
or some sort of wreckless endangerment, possibly illegal discharge of a weapon. Instead he was only charged with Murder in the Second degree and the judge threw in the option of the manslaughter beef after discharging for deliberations. Like I said, the fix was in from jump. The question is with all of this outrage, analysis, pontificating, rallies planned for the weekend, why are lawyers who support Trayvon bring up the fact that D. A. half assed on this case. Like I said earlier, I'm in my junior at St. John's University and I have an A.A. in legal studies from TCI College, (a for profit institution that advertises duirng Maury and Jerry Springer,); I myself with my limited knowledge of the law know that the D. A. ? up, then why aren't other lawyers, and legal scholars saying it and mostly importantly my haven't they pointed this out to Trayvon's parents. The only person who has pointed out the inadequacies in prosecution case is somebody who can't be retaliated against and that person is a former president.
-
His moms want obama to do somethin about it now she's so naive.Dumbo aint gonna do ?
I feel sorry for trayvon parents they putting faith in ? and thinking their faith will get them thru this.Their son died senselessly and ? /jesus and the rest of those figments of sheeps imagination won't change that -
Tommy bilfiger wrote: »His moms want obama to do somethin about it now she's so naive.Dumbo aint gonna do ?
I feel sorry for trayvon parents they putting faith in ? and thinking their faith will get them thru this.Their son died senselessly and ? /jesus and the rest of those figments of sheeps imagination won't change that
this has been more talked about then the boston bombings... I will say this this aint one of those stories that will " just go away" something will get done no matter how " small" u might think.. their faith n ? is whats gonna get them thru... the media pressure and the people signing petitions is whats gonna get ? changed...
This discussion has been closed.