freeman3 wrote:This is America we are entitled to our opinions (and, no, I don't believe we have to wait until the jury decides to express them--sorry Dan I have to disagree with you there). Though some opinions are better than others...

Thanks for acknowledging this. I'm truly sorry you're on the wrong side.

Doctor Fate wrote:

freeman3 wrote:This is America we are entitled to our opinions (and, no, I don't believe we have to wait until the jury decides to express them--sorry Dan I have to disagree with you there). Though some opinions are better than others...

Thanks for acknowledging this. I'm truly sorry you're on the wrong side.

My sarcasm sensor went off... Steve? Was that you?

DF expressing sorrow because (according to him) someone else is wrong. Typical DF if you ask me.

Funny how this reminds me of a study done where it claims liberals are far more close minded than are conservatives. It might make a good thread to argue but I tend to think they really are oin to something here...
http://www.american.com/archive/2012/ap ... ose-minded

i don't know about the thread, but the profile test linked is interesting.
http://www.yourmorals.org/

freeman3 wrote:DF expressing sorrow because (according to him) someone else is wrong. Typical DF if you ask me.

Ack, no, I'm genuinely sorry. I think you've set aside what you know for reasons that are unclear.

Today, the judge was out of control. She kept asking Zimmerman if he was going to testify. She overruled objections and kept asking. She doesn't seem to have much objectivity left.

The wrongful death suit to follow will be a slam dunk, but the criminal prosecution is tough with the extraordinary circumstances involved.

Neal Anderth wrote:The wrongful death suit to follow will be a slam dunk, but the criminal prosecution is tough with the extraordinary circumstances involved.

Slam dunk?

Sure, the burden of proof is much lower. However, there are going to be two mitigating circumstances: 1) self-defense; 2) sympathy.

Why sympathy?

Just wait until we see what Zimmerman's life is like after the trial. The Panthers already so much as threatened his life BEFORE the trial.

Not a slam dunk at all, remember if that also goes to trial, Zimmerman will have already been found not guilty of murder for the reason of self defense, that will be hard to beat!
I was just reading an opinion piece on CNN asking if Trayvon Martin did not also have a right to stand his ground and defend himself. Interesting take I suppose but it is flawed in several ways. You can possibly say Martin was confronted by Zimmerman and he may have been scared by this confrontation, but the confrontation was a verbal one and his life was not in peril. The injuries also indicate it was Martin who initiated the fight and did all the damage, he also could have easily escaped after that first punch that landed Zimmerman on the ground with a broken nose but he instead chose to get on top of his chest and pummel Zimmerman.

Martin in no way was defending himself.

tom

You can possibly say Martin was confronted by Zimmerman and he may have been scared by this confrontation, but the confrontation was a verbal one and his life was not in peril

Martin's life was in peril the moment Zimmerman began to follow him because Zimmerman was armed with the means to kill him, easily.
By confronting Zimmerman, he put himself in grave danger. By physically confronting him, he provided Zimmerman the excuse/reason to use his gun.

The possession of a fire arm provided Zimmerman the confidence to act as a lone vigilante. Based on the testimony at the trial, he wasn't a physically strong man who would have been, or maybe should have been, confident in picking a physical confrontation with anyone.
The genesis moment for Martins death, was the moment ZImmerman decided to take his gun and look for trouble.
This event is a cautionary tale that defines the contribution hand guns make to the way strangers handle confrontations and to the rapid escalation that can occur when one or both parties have the means to easily end the confrontation with mortal consequences.
The stand your ground laws are a contradiction. Who was standing their ground in this circumstance? Martin. Zimmerman didn't even use the law as a defence, an admission that he wasn't in the act of responding to an assault on his person or property when he began to follow Martin. So if Martin was standing his ground, rightfully reacting to a perceived intrusion on his right to use the public space .... the law would have protected him from charges of assault on Zimmerman. But, I think we can all agree, he was wrong to physically assault Zimmerman... So any law that protected him from punishment for the assault is an ass.
Still, the underlying question is why it was all right for Zimmerman to arm himself and become a neighborhood vigilante? That act, was the point where Martins life entered peril.

not so fast...
You must prove Zimmerman felt his life was in peril and that's why he shot martin.
That case seems to have been made, broken nose, head bashed against the pavement, Martin on top wailing away...

But you now claim martin was in peril because Zimmerman was armed.
But Martin did not know he was armed, the weapon was concealed!
Would martin have confronted Zimmerman or hit him if he knew Zimmerman was armed? not a chance!
So Martin started the physical aspect of the altercation, because he didn't like being followed, martin punched and beat up Zimmerman. Zimmerman in NO WAY "decided to take his gun and look for trouble". He had a gun to defend himself from just this sort of situation, we arm our police officers for the same reason now don't we?

You confuse the issues further...
Who was standing their ground?
You claim it was martin yet martin started the fight, if I call you a name it does not give you the right to escalate that into a fist fight and if we went to court, you would be found guilty no doubt, (sticks and stones) So the one who protected himself was indeed Zimmerman.
Martin had no right to start a fight because he decided he didn't like being followed or possibly questioned. Zimmerman also had a right to follow anyone he liked. Even though the 911 operator told him to stay put, it was not breaking the law to continue to follow.

Why is it right for Zimmerman to arm himself and become a vigilante?
Nice choice of wording, lets instead ask why he can't be part of a neighborhood watch and keep an eye on his neighborhood? He can certainly do that, that is simply being a good citizen and good neighbor. If he fears for his life in doing so, he may come across people who want to attack him or even more likely, he could come across an attacking dog, he does have every RIGHT to arm himself. That RIGHT you may not care for but he was in no way wrong to do so, your zeal to convict because he was armed is not taking the law into account, instead it only tells us how you want to ignore law and rule based on your feelings about guns.

oh, and "stand your ground"
...not part of the trial, why bring it up?

I thought our system was "innocent until PROVEN guilty?"

Apparently, in this case, liberals don't like that standard.

I saw part of the defense summary this morning. It's going to be tough to overcome this: 4 plus minutes of Trayvon's actions for which there is no account. That sure seems like time to get away.

The only issue for the jury is this: was Zimmerman acting in self-defense? In other words, did he reasonably fear great bodily injury?

If so, they have to acquit. That's the law. If not, they will convict.

Now, you can argue about the gun all you want, but the gun is not the ultimate issue. Self-defense is.

The jury will have to determine who it believes was the aggressor. The jury will have to determine what Martin and Zimmerman were doing.

The pressure is on them to find him guilty of something. There would have been no charges except for the Black Panthers, Al Sharpton, Jesse Jackson, the President, the Department of Justice, and numerous members of Congress making this a racial issue (I heard last night Zimmerman is so ethnically diverse that he is 1/8 black and 1/2 Hispanic, but the media has called him a "self-professed Hispanic"). Let's see what they do.

it all boils down to if this was self defense and all indicators do point that way.
Stand your ground ...plays no part
Race ...plays no part
Zimmerman following Martin ...plays no part
Zimmerman having a gun ...plays no part
Zimmerman ignoring the operator to stay put ...plays no part

all these issue that play no part are brought up by the prosecution but if this comes down to self defense, they simply do not matter. If Zimmerman feared for his life, he walks
broken nose, no marks on Martin, back of head beaten, ground and pound, these all indicate GZ will walk away from this.

Took a look at how great bodily injury is defined in Florida. In one case getting hit over the head with a bicycle pump and slashed with a knife did not constitute great bodily injury.http://www.5dca.org/opinions/Opin2001/0 ... cor.op.pdf
Now great bodily injury is not defined in Florida but a similar term, serious bodily injury, is. http://www.floridabar.org/divcom/jn/jnj ... 330050EF96
Clearly, Zimmerman did not suffer great bodily injury or anything close to it. And clearly the fear of getting punched cannot justify shooting someone. If you want to claim that zimmerman's head was being banged against the cement was enough to justify shooting him, fine. But then the jury would have to believe Zimmerman withou corroboration and without being cross-examined and also that Zimmerman had no other options (since Zimmermans head was not being hit against the cement when he shot him so this is very questionable). You cant shoot someone in a public place when you just sustained a misdemeanor assault and battery and there is no indication that you are in imminent danger of death or great bodily injury.
Yeah, there was pressure to charge Zimmerman because he got a pass because it was just a young black man who was killed.

freeman3 wrote:Took a look at how great bodily injury is defined in Florida. In one case getting hit over the head with a bicycle pump and slashed with a knife did not constitute great bodily injury.http://www.5dca.org/opinions/Opin2001/0 ... cor.op.pdf
Now great bodily injury is not defined in Florida but a similar term, serious bodily injury, is. http://www.floridabar.org/divcom/jn/jnj ... 330050EF96
Clearly, Zimmerman did not suffer great bodily injury or anything close to it. And clearly the fear of getting punched cannot justify shooting someone. If you want to claim that zimmerman's head was being banged against the cement was enough to justify shooting him, fine. But then the jury would have to believe Zimmerman withou corroboration and without being cross-examined and also that Zimmerman had no other options (since Zimmermans head was not being hit against the cement when he shot him so this is very questionable). You cant shoot someone in a public place when you just sustained a misdemeanor assault and battery and there is no indication that you are in imminent danger of death or great bodily injury.
Yeah, there was pressure to charge Zimmerman because he got a pass because it was just a young black man who was killed.

You had a decent case until you wasted it by playing the race card. You have zero evidence for that. There are many indications the prosecution was politically-motivated.

The jury has it now.