Zimmerman verdict - Page 57 - PeachParts Mercedes-Benz Forum

Dubyagee · #**841** 07-22-2013, 05:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cmac2012

Can you spell "vast oversimplification" boys and girls? Zimmerman had a bit of thug like behavior in this drama also. In spite of his once having the hots for a black girl, he had been going round his neighborhood warning people about black youths. He went over the dark side, assuming that all blacks are criminals. There is no progress possible with such an attitude, just a slow slide to some sort of race war.

You have no clue, other than the self-serving words of GZ, that he didn't threaten TM in a way that moved TM to feel he was in danger from this dude, not a cop, who was shadowing him.

A judge and jury had a clue. The original investigation had a clue. The only ones without a clue are the race baiting talking heads.

Skippy · #**842** 07-22-2013, 05:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by davidmash

What it means is that homicides that were committed after the SYG law was enacted were not prosecuted like they would have been prior to the law being implemented.

One case I recall reading about was a gang A went out in front of a rival gangs B location. They tainted the rival gang B went out on the street to confront gang A. Gang A felt 'threatened' and opened fire. No one was prosecuted under Florida's SYG law.

What it means is that homicides that were once considered criminal are now considered justified and the number of the justified homicides have increased since the implementation of the SYG law.

And what exactly is the problem?

cmac2012 · #**843** 07-22-2013, 06:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dubyagee

A judge and jury had a clue. The original investigation had a clue. The only ones without a clue are the race baiting talking heads.

They had bits and pieces of clues. There wasn't much solid evidence to be had. This has been known for some time. I heard the one juror who was speaking out. Sounds like she bought into a lot of the same assumptions that GZ did. GZ and team were lucky to have a jury kind to them, that and an incompetent prosecution. The prosecutor lady with her remarks about 'murderer' after the verdict indicated somewhat her lack of gravitas.

davidmash · #**844** 07-22-2013, 06:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MS Fowler

Obama was for SYG before he was against it. He voted in favor of it during his brief stint in the Illinois legislature. Now he pontificates against it.

SYG comes in different flavors. SYG in onesnon castle is good. SYG in a public space is bad in my opinion. What was the law that Obama supported that had a SYG clause innit?

davidmash · #**845** 07-22-2013, 06:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dubyagee

Two brothers and three judges in Charleston SC. Wanna see pics of the fishing trips?

Of course not...

I have no reason to doubt you know people but 4 people out of a very large pool does not a consensus make. And even if there were a consensus it does not necessarily makenit good law. A majority of people have supported various laws throughout our history that were bad laws.

davidmash · #**846** 07-22-2013, 06:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Skippy

And what exactly is the problem?

Joking right?

Dubyagee · #**847** 07-22-2013, 06:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cmac2012

They had bits and pieces of clues. There wasn't much solid evidence to be had. This has been known for some time. I heard the one juror who was speaking out. Sounds like she bought into a lot of the same assumptions that GZ did. GZ and team were lucky to have a jury kind to them, that and an incompetent prosecution. The prosecutor lady with her remarks about 'murderer' after the verdict indicated somewhat her lack of gravitas.

I agree. The prosecution was terrible. Weak witnesses, Weak charges and weak evidence. Innocent till proven guilty stood tall but not much else.

Dubyagee · #**848** 07-22-2013, 06:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by davidmash

I have no reason to doubt you know people but 4 people out of a very large pool does not a consensus make. And even if there were a consensus it does not necessarily makenit good law. A majority of people have supported various laws throughout our history that were bad laws.

Now that is a discussion. I agree that it does not make a majority but I haven't seen proof either way. I have seen some confident statements made here with none.

Dudesky · #**849** 07-22-2013, 06:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by davidmash

What it means is that homicides that were committed after the SYG law was enacted were not prosecuted like they would have been prior to the law being implemented.

One case I recall reading about was a gang A went out in front of a rival gangs B location. They tainted the rival gang B went out on the street to confront gang A. Gang A felt 'threatened' and opened fire. No one was prosecuted under Florida's SYG law.

What it means is that homicides that were once considered criminal are now considered justified and the number of the justified homicides have increased since the implementation of the SYG law.

Professor Dave opines:

Justifiable homicide when in a self defense scenario hasn't changed one bit. What you attempt to infer is only when the defense attempts to qualify that under the states SYG statute to avoid any further legal action.
That didn't happen in Zimmerman.

cmac2012 · #**850** 07-22-2013, 07:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dubyagee

I agree. The prosecution was terrible. Weak witnesses, Weak charges and weak evidence. Innocent till proven guilty stood tall but not much else.

They sure didn't seem to do much to prepare their witness, the girlfriend. Not that I'd approve of major witness coaching or modification but the young lady was clearly not ready for the spotlight.

And 2nd degree murder was too great a charge.

Dudesky · #**851** 07-22-2013, 07:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cmac2012

They sure didn't seem to do much to prepare their witness, the girlfriend. Not that I'd approve of major witness coaching or modification but the young lady was clearly not ready for the spotlight.

And 2nd degree murder was too great a charge.

Should have left Sanford PD do their job.
Don't think she would have done much better coached.

cmac2012 · #**852** 07-22-2013, 07:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dudesky

Don't think she would have done much better coached.

Probably right.

Dubyagee · #**853** 07-22-2013, 07:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cmac2012

They sure didn't seem to do much to prepare their witness, the girlfriend. Not that I'd approve of major witness coaching or modification but the young lady was clearly not ready for the spotlight.

And 2nd degree murder was too great a charge.

Prosecution definitely played the wrong hand. I dont think any other charges would have stuck with the circumstances given though. I feel this was driven by the anti gun and anti SYG crowd and they picked the wrong case to co-opt.

neumann · #**854** 07-22-2013, 10:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by davidmash

Pretty sure that is not what I said.

Everyone has the the right to defend ones self. In public if you have the option to retreat to avoid the confrontation then by law you are obligated to. The duty to retreat does not apply to ones castle (home).

Please provide reference to such law where it states that I am obligated to retreat. I am in Florida so please make sure it applies to Florida or for that matter please supply laws for all 57 states or is it still 50 states

. I travel extensively so it would be nice to where I should high tail like a screaming little biatch or stand my ground and not let some punk arse steam roll me

. I might be carrying or I might not be, depends on reciprocity of the state I will be traveling in. Btw, I don't need the gun it just makes it more efficient to defend myself and keeps me from touching the bad guy if it came to that. I don't see the the
wrong in having Overwhelming force and disproportionality in force when it comes to defending myself or loved ones. Bring a knife on me, am I supposed to respond with a knife or can I use my gun? Attack me with fists, am I not allowed to use my gun? Should I ask you to stop your arse beating of me so I can call in an expert opinion to tell me when it's justifiable for me to shoot you or use Overwhelming force on my part to stop you from possibly beating me to death?

Truth be told I will try to evade issues and situtions if they present themselves but I will not let someone's dim witted viewpoint of societal interaction to prevent me from interjecting myself into a situation where I see something or feel that someone may be doing something wrong or feel that a situation is awry. Call it the Boy Scout syndrome or whatever but I will get involved where I see fit and if I cannot handle the situation I will call the police and have them intercede and take over the situation. I deem it to be my social responsibility to be involved in society, to stand where others run in fear, to help those who are helpless to and to defend and provide safety for my loved ones at all cost. Too many people just stand by and have an attitude of "oh let someone else handle it, it's not my concern...." If everyone had that attitude, the criminals and thugs of the world would have a free for all.

Its easier to apologize for possibly offending someone than having to apologize to someones loved one because you stood by and let someone they know or love get taken advantage of or let someone else get hurt, assaulted of possibly worse because you felt you should not get involved. There are limits to what one can do, but if nobody took a stand for their common sense beliefs than we would all be in for a world of hurt. Please don't come back with, "well what if someone believes such and such or some other crap" or throw out wild scenarios. I am talking about using plain old common sense and if fellow posters cannot see that then they might be a few quarts low on common sense.

Dudesky · #**855** 07-22-2013, 10:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by neumann

Please provide reference to such law where it states that I am obligated to retreat. I am in Florida so please make sure it applies to Florida or for that matter please supply laws for all 57 states or is it still 50 states

. I travel extensively so it would be nice to where I should high tail like a screaming little biatch or stand my ground and not let some punk arse steam roll me

. I might be carrying or I might not be, depends on reciprocity of the state I will be traveling in. Btw, I don't need the gun it just makes it more efficient to defend myself and keeps me from touching the bad guy if it came to that. I don't see the the
wrong in having Overwhelming force and disproportionality in force when it comes to defending myself or loved ones. Bring a knife on me, am I supposed to respond with a knife or can I use my gun? Attack me with fists, am I not allowed to use my gun? Should I ask you to stop your arse beating of me so I can call in an expert opinion to tell me when it's justifiable for me to shoot you or use Overwhelming force on my part to stop you from possibly beating me to death?

Truth be told I will try to evade issues and situtions if they present themselves but I will not let someone's dim witted viewpoint of societal interaction to prevent me from interjecting myself into a situation where I see something or feel that someone may be doing something wrong or feel that a situation is awry. Call it the Boy Scout syndrome or whatever but I will get involved where I see fit and if I cannot handle the situation I will call the police and have them intercede and take over the situation. I deem it to be my social responsibility to be involved in society, to stand where others run in fear, to help those who are helpless to and to defend and provide safety for my loved ones at all cost. Too many people just stand by and have an attitude of "oh let someone else handle it, it's not my concern...." If everyone had that attitude, the criminals and thugs of the world would have a free for all.

Its easier to apologize for possibly offending someone than having to apologize to someones loved one because you stood by and let someone they know or love get taken advantage of or let someone else get hurt, assaulted of possibly worse because you felt you should not get involved. There are limits to what one can do, but if nobody took a stand for their common sense beliefs than we would all be in for a world of hurt. Please don't come back with, "well what if someone believes such and such or some other crap" or throw out wild scenarios. I am talking about using plain old common sense and if fellow posters cannot see that then they might be a few quarts low on common sense.

http://www.leg.state.fl.us/Statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&URL=0700-0799/0782/0782.html