|
|
07-19-2013, 07:48 PM
|
|
|
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Calgary
Posts: 1,507
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by hal53
yup, the prosecution blew it, takes people awhile to see that though, easier to jump on the racist etc. band wagon without looking into the facts..
|
Blew what? A famous African American once sang, "Nothin from Nothin leaves Nothin!"
The procecution had nothing to blow period.
__________________
Pacifists exist at the pleasure of the more aggressive, or by the sacrifices made by the less passive.
|
07-19-2013, 07:56 PM
|
|
Gone Hunting
|
|
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Lougheed,Ab.
Posts: 12,736
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by TomCanuck
Blew what? A famous African American once sang, "Nothin from Nothin leaves Nothin!"
The procecution had nothing to blow period.
|
they never gave the jury enough to prove reasonable doubt, plus the "stand your ground law" was not debated near enough, they got lucky when the judge allowed the manslaughter charge after the fact, then they couldn't convince the jury of that either.....so???.....
__________________
The future ain't what it used to be - Yogi Berra
|
07-19-2013, 08:23 PM
|
|
|
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 991
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sundancefisher
After some thought I see the prosecutor screwing up their job. While I stand by what I stated earlier had I done the job they should of used the premise that Trayvon was innocently walking home when stalked, felt threatened and tried to protect himself from the instigator. Then they may of been able to argue that Trayvon was threatened by George, took a position of defensible confrontation and George accelerated his aggression by killing Trayvon.
Might of made a difference.
|
Of course the only problem with your theory is that it is not supported by any facts.
|
07-19-2013, 08:26 PM
|
|
|
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Calgary
Posts: 1,507
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by hal53
they never gave the jury enough to prove reasonable doubt, plus the "stand your ground law" was not debated near enough, they got lucky when the judge allowed the manslaughter charge after the fact, then they couldn't convince the jury of that either.....so???.....
|
Defence don't have to prove anything, burden is on the state.
__________________
Pacifists exist at the pleasure of the more aggressive, or by the sacrifices made by the less passive.
|
07-19-2013, 09:21 PM
|
|
|
|
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: On top of sphagetti
Posts: 3,565
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by hal53
they never gave the jury enough to prove reasonable doubt, plus the "stand your ground law" was not debated near enough, they got lucky when the judge allowed the manslaughter charge after the fact, then they couldn't convince the jury of that either.....so???.....
|
There prosectutions job isn't to prove reasonable doubt. It's the defenses job, which was quite easy to do. The stand your gound law wasn't debated because Zimmerman didn't claim stand your ground, he claimed simple self defense. You can't stand your ground when you are on your back getting beat, it becomes self defense at that point.
|
07-19-2013, 09:26 PM
|
|
|
|
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: On top of sphagetti
Posts: 3,565
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sundancefisher
After some thought I see the prosecutor screwing up their job. While I stand by what I stated earlier had I done the job they should of used the premise that Trayvon was innocently walking home when stalked, felt threatened and tried to protect himself from the instigator. Then they may of been able to argue that Trayvon was threatened by George, took a position of defensible confrontation and George accelerated his aggression by killing Trayvon.
Might of made a difference.
|
They could have said that Trayvon was innocently walking home when stalked, felt threatened and tried to protect himself, but there is no proof of this. It very well MAY have happened, we'll never know, but if there is no definite proof, then there is definte reasonable doubt.
Based on all the evidence we've seen, it's hard to imagine an angle the prosectution could have used to get a manslaughter conviction, let alone a 2nd degree murder conviction. The state is supposed to believe that a conviction is likely before they prosecute I believe.. This is what leads many to believe that this trial shouldn't have even taken place and was motivated by something other than a search for justice.
|
07-20-2013, 10:50 PM
|
Banned
|
|
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 6,408
|
|
Notice how portly or chubby is now as compared to then, well, while Trayvon was dumbed down and paranoid on THC, George was hopped up on Aderall and Temazepam.
Long-Term Effects of Adderall
Using Adderall over an extended period can increase the risk of critical cardiovascular problems and strokes. There are also significant mental health issues associated with the long-term use of Adderall, such as depression, hostility and paranoia.
Some people using Temazepam have engaged in activity such as driving, eating, or making phone calls and later having no memory of the activity.
Of course George could have used this as a defense in the immensely long court case (21 days). It also brings up the CCW question on background checks on the mentally instable out there.
http://skydancingblog.com/2012/05/15...and-temazepam/
Pics of George then (skinny, head shaved, jibhead) and now (babyfaced, bigboy burger coifed hair) ;
|
07-21-2013, 06:03 AM
|
|
|
|
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Calgary Perchdance
Posts: 19,285
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by canadiantdi
They could have said that Trayvon was innocently walking home when stalked, felt threatened and tried to protect himself, but there is no proof of this. It very well MAY have happened, we'll never know, but if there is no definite proof, then there is definte reasonable doubt.
Based on all the evidence we've seen, it's hard to imagine an angle the prosectution could have used to get a manslaughter conviction, let alone a 2nd degree murder conviction. The state is supposed to believe that a conviction is likely before they prosecute I believe.. This is what leads many to believe that this trial shouldn't have even taken place and was motivated by something other than a search for justice.
|
I believe the right verdict for US law was returned. I was just saying turning the self defence argument against Zimmerman may of been a better approach.
Zimmerman was the aggressor originally. He stalked the guy, confronted him, then engaged in a fight. There were many points along the way... And at the insistence of the police could of broken the confrontation and did not. This was just stupid actions and not criminal so he got off.
It would be interesting to have seen if the jury would of said Trayvon was protecting himself versus Zimmerman.
If you think about a scenario where someone is following you... Your choice is reasonable to assume ill intent. Then your option is run, hide or stand your ground. If you feel a threat is imminent given the circumstance, swinging first would be reasonable.
Just a though but moot since a decision was rendered.
Still had they tried... Since Zimmerman was the aggressor the verdict may of been different.
__________________
Observing the TIGSCJ in the wilds of social media socio-ecological uniformity environments.
|
07-21-2013, 06:09 AM
|
|
|
|
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Calgary Perchdance
Posts: 19,285
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by JamesB
Of course the only problem with your theory is that it is not supported by any facts.
|
I disagree
Zimmerman followed Trayvon
Indisputable.
He was also told to stop and increased the actions by getting closer until a fight broke out.
Also facts in a court is all about timing and presentation. Who was trying to protect themselves? Zimmerman from a guy he was stalking... or Trayvon from the guy that was stalking him.
Think about it. Just an interesting point is all. Still moot.
__________________
Observing the TIGSCJ in the wilds of social media socio-ecological uniformity environments.
|
07-21-2013, 06:22 AM
|
|
Gone Hunting
|
|
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Between Bodo and a hard place
Posts: 20,168
|
|
Maybe be more selective when it comes to jurors.
__________________
I'm not lying!!! You are just experiencing it differently.
It isn't a question of who will allow me, but who will stop me.. Ayn Rand
|
07-21-2013, 06:23 AM
|
|
|
|
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: On top of sphagetti
Posts: 3,565
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sundancefisher
I believe the right verdict for US law was returned. I was just saying turning the self defence argument against Zimmerman may of been a better approach.
Zimmerman was the aggressor originally. He stalked the guy, confronted him, then engaged in a fight. There were many points along the way... And at the insistence of the police could of broken the confrontation and did not. This was just stupid actions and not criminal so he got off.
It would be interesting to have seen if the jury would of said Trayvon was protecting himself versus Zimmerman.
If you think about a scenario where someone is following you... Your choice is reasonable to assume ill intent. Then your option is run, hide or stand your ground. If you feel a threat is imminent given the circumstance, swinging first would be reasonable.
Just a though but moot since a decision was rendered.
Still had they tried... Since Zimmerman was the aggressor the verdict may of been different.
|
I suspect that if Zimmerman was killed, and Martin claimed that he swung because he was legitimately afraid for life or limb, than there MAY have been reasonable doubt and he MAY have gotten off. I don't know if he would though.. It may be hard to claim that you HAD to attack someone because they followed you.. a jury may doubt that you feared for your life.. as opposed to Zim, where there were injuries, it was pretty easy to see how he could have feared.
You can bet that there wouldn't be protests in the the streets though.
|
07-21-2013, 06:25 AM
|
|
|
|
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: On top of sphagetti
Posts: 3,565
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sundancefisher
I disagree
Zimmerman followed Trayvon
Indisputable.
He was also told to stop and increased the actions by getting closer until a fight broke out.
Also facts in a court is all about timing and presentation. Who was trying to protect themselves? Zimmerman from a guy he was stalking... or Trayvon from the guy that was stalking him.
Think about it. Just an interesting point is all. Still moot.
|
He wasn't told not to follow, and even if he was, he was under no obligation to stop. It wasn't a legal demand, and therefore, he broke NO law by continuing.
It's easier to see how Zim was defending himself as opposed to Martin. Only one person got their bums handed to them before the final shot.
|
07-21-2013, 06:26 AM
|
|
|
|
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: On top of sphagetti
Posts: 3,565
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Redfrog
Maybe be more selective when it comes to jurors.
|
That's hilarious! haha
|
07-21-2013, 06:48 AM
|
|
|
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Maidstone Sask
Posts: 2,799
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sundancefisher
Zimmerman was the aggressor originally. He stalked the guy, confronted him, then engaged in a fight.
|
Pure conjecture, most of it. There is evidence he followed TM. There is no evidence he stalked him. Ditto with confronting him. There is evidence he defended himself, is that the same as engaging someone?
Remember now, post your sources, no sources-it didn't happen.
|
07-21-2013, 06:50 AM
|
|
|
|
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Calgary Perchdance
Posts: 19,285
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Redfrog
Maybe be more selective when it comes to jurors.
|
Good one. Very funny.
__________________
Observing the TIGSCJ in the wilds of social media socio-ecological uniformity environments.
|
07-21-2013, 06:54 AM
|
|
|
|
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Calgary Perchdance
Posts: 19,285
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by silver
Pure conjecture, most of it. There is evidence he followed TM. There is no evidence he stalked him. Ditto with confronting him. There is evidence he defended himself, is that the same as engaging someone?
Remember now, post your sources, no sources-it didn't happen.
|
Lol
I am just saying the prosecution should of represented the situation differently to counteract Zimmermans self defence argument.
It is all in the presentation. One persons follow is another persons stalked. Call it following for arguments sake. If you followed me long enough I would take it as a threat. How one deals with that threat differs. Conceivable if Trayvon had a gun... Felt threatened by the follow and killed Zimmerman would that be self defence?
__________________
Observing the TIGSCJ in the wilds of social media socio-ecological uniformity environments.
|
07-21-2013, 07:16 AM
|
|
|
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Maidstone Sask
Posts: 2,799
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sundancefisher
Lol
I am just saying the prosecution should of represented the situation differently to counteract Zimmermans self defence argument.
It is all in the presentation. One persons follow is another persons stalked. Call it following for arguments sake. If you followed me long enough I would take it as a threat. How one deals with that threat differs. Conceivable if Trayvon had a gun... Felt threatened by the follow and killed Zimmerman would that be self defence?
|
It's all in the presentation, someone concerned with presenting facts would use follow, someone trying to whip up emotions and slanting the outcome would use stalking.
It would only be self defense in your scenario if Zimmerman attacked him.
|
07-21-2013, 09:15 AM
|
|
|
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 991
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sundancefisher
Lol
I am just saying the prosecution should of represented the situation differently to counteract Zimmermans self defence argument.
It is all in the presentation. One persons follow is another persons stalked. Call it following for arguments sake. If you followed me long enough I would take it as a threat. How one deals with that threat differs. Conceivable if Trayvon had a gun... Felt threatened by the follow and killed Zimmerman would that be self defence?
|
The presentation needs to agree with the facts. The defense would look every bit as weak providing a false narrative. In you example the defense would very likely question why Martin did not just go home and call 911 if he felt threatened.
|
07-21-2013, 11:34 AM
|
|
Gone Hunting
|
|
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Between Bodo and a hard place
Posts: 20,168
|
|
I just heard that Zimmerman has changed his name to Ben Ghazi.
The white house will likely not mention him again.
__________________
I'm not lying!!! You are just experiencing it differently.
It isn't a question of who will allow me, but who will stop me.. Ayn Rand
|
07-21-2013, 01:15 PM
|
|
|
|
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Calgary Perchdance
Posts: 19,285
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by canadiantdi
He wasn't told not to follow, and even if he was, he was under no obligation to stop. It wasn't a legal demand, and therefore, he broke NO law by continuing.
It's easier to see how Zim was defending himself as opposed to Martin. Only one person got their bums handed to them before the final shot.
|
Actually in the testimony and 911 tapes Zimmerman was told not to follow by the police. It is standard practice for them to say that... Mostly to stop the situation from getting worse.
__________________
Observing the TIGSCJ in the wilds of social media socio-ecological uniformity environments.
|
07-21-2013, 01:18 PM
|
|
|
|
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Calgary Perchdance
Posts: 19,285
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by silver
It's all in the presentation, someone concerned with presenting facts would use follow, someone trying to whip up emotions and slanting the outcome would use stalking.
It would only be self defense in your scenario if Zimmerman attacked him.
|
I bet a good lawyer could easily make a case that following was an aggressive stance. I was not sure the guy following me did not have a weapon. I could not risk it therefore fearing for my life I acted first. Homeowners have killed people through the door cause the thought the sound of knocking was attempted break and enter.
Definitely a plausible argument in the USA
__________________
Observing the TIGSCJ in the wilds of social media socio-ecological uniformity environments.
|
07-21-2013, 01:46 PM
|
|
|
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 3,556
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sundancefisher
Actually in the testimony and 911 tapes Zimmerman was told not to follow by the police. It is standard practice for them to say that... Mostly to stop the situation from getting worse.
|
He wa told "we don't need to do that" by an operator and according to the National Post, the prosecutor admitted that was ambigous in his closing arguments.
|
07-21-2013, 02:15 PM
|
|
|
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Maidstone Sask
Posts: 2,799
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sundancefisher
I was not sure the guy following me did not have a weapon. I could not risk it therefore fearing for my life I acted first.
|
In order to use lethal force, there has to be a definable threat. The situation as you describe is Murder 2
|
07-21-2013, 02:20 PM
|
|
|
|
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Calgary Perchdance
Posts: 19,285
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by silver
In order to use lethal force, there has to be a definable threat. The situation as you describe is Murder 2
|
I agree but there are instances of I felt threatened was deemed self defence. Same as my example. I am not saying it would of worked... I just think the case was proved well as self defence... Hence the prosecutor needed a different approach to have a remote chance of winning.
__________________
Observing the TIGSCJ in the wilds of social media socio-ecological uniformity environments.
|
07-21-2013, 02:31 PM
|
|
|
|
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Calgary Perchdance
Posts: 19,285
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by riden
He wa told "we don't need to do that" by an operator and according to the National Post, the prosecutor admitted that was ambigous in his closing arguments.
|
http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmem...von_martin.php
He knew what the 911 operator was saying.
However you are correct on the transcript.
http://www.wftv.com/videos/news/raw-...-police/vGZq9/
George doesn't sound like a vigilante on the call.
A good example of George knowing to stop and the defence covering that up well.
__________________
Observing the TIGSCJ in the wilds of social media socio-ecological uniformity environments.
|
07-21-2013, 02:33 PM
|
|
|
|
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 2,060
|
|
I think this ones beat to death, waiting on the next big trial
|
07-21-2013, 03:19 PM
|
|
Gone Hunting
|
|
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Between Bodo and a hard place
Posts: 20,168
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Roughneck Country
I think this ones beat to death, waiting on the next big trial
|
Well you can bet the ranch that it won't be this story.
Obama is silent. Wonder why?
"You probably won't recognize me or even know my name.
I was the 13-month old baby who was shot in the face at point blank range by two Black teens who were attempting to rob my mom who also got shot. A Grand Jury of my mommy and daddy's peers from Brunswick GA determined the teens who murdered me will not face the death penalty because they were too young... too bad, I was given a death sentence by them for being too young, White, innocent, defenseless and in the 'wrong' neighborhood where I lived.
My mommy and daddy made the mistake of being White and living in a 73% non-white neighborhood, but my murder was not ruled a Hate Crime. The Justice Department never even investigated my death, or if my rights were violated. President Obama didn't take so much as a single moment to acknowledge my murder or honor me.
I am one of the youngest murder victims in our great nation's history, but the media doesn't care to cover the story of my tragic demise. Michelle wasn't heartbroken. President Obama has no children who could possibly look like me, so he doesn't care and the media didn't care because my story is not interesting enough to bring them ratings so they can sell commercial time slots.
There is not a White equivalent of Al Sharpton because if there was he would be declared racist, so there is no one rushing to Brunswick GA to demand justice for me.
There is no White Panther party to put a bounty on the lives of those Black guys who murdered me. I have no voice, I have no representation and unlike those who shot me in the face while I sat innocently in my stroller - I no longer have my life.
So while you are seeking justice, rioting and demonstrating for Treyvon Martin, please remember to seek justice for me too. Tell your friends about me, tell you families, get tee-shirts with my face on them and make the world pay attention, just like you're doing for Treyvon Martin.
Thank you,
My name was Antonio Santiago."
__________________
I'm not lying!!! You are just experiencing it differently.
It isn't a question of who will allow me, but who will stop me.. Ayn Rand
|
07-21-2013, 03:56 PM
|
Banned
|
|
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 12,078
|
|
Guess What. Zimmerman gets his gun back, and still can carry CCW.
But, with Barky Obama involved will this become a case of double jeopardy?
Also, The boys in the hood have it in for this "white Latino". A new term created by the liberal news media. So that would make Barky Obama a "black white". I find the Higgs Bosen portion of EMF more easy to understand.
.
|
07-21-2013, 05:04 PM
|
|
|
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Maidstone Sask
Posts: 2,799
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by greylynx
Guess What. Zimmerman gets his gun back, and still can carry CCW.
.
|
I thought the feds were hanging on to his handgun, considered it to be potential evidence in future legal action.
|
Posting Rules
|
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
HTML code is Off
|
|
|
All times are GMT -6. The time now is 11:53 PM.
|