Language:
switch to room list switch to menu My folders
Go to page: [1] 2 3 4 5 ... Last
↑↑↑ Old messages ↑↑↑            ↓↓↓ New messages ↓↓↓
[#] Tue Jul 23 2013 13:32:04 EDT from zooer @ Uncensored

[Reply] [ReplyQuoted] [Headers] [Print]

I read a comment on another site, NBC will play the video of the rescue backwards so it looks like Zimmerman is
putting the people in the truck.

[#] Tue Jul 23 2013 15:31:46 EDT from vince-q @ Cascade Lodge BBS

[Reply] [ReplyQuoted] [Headers] [Print]


Imagine the scene:
Zimmerman runs to the overturned SUV, kneels and looks inside.
He then stands up, walks away shrugging his shoulders to be heard saying:

"It's only Obama and Holder. Let someone ELSE do this..."

[#] Tue Jul 23 2013 18:51:38 EDT from IGnatius T Foobar @ Uncensored

[Reply] [ReplyQuoted] [Headers] [Print]

Actually, we don't have to make up the ridiculously one-sided view. The commie-bots on Twitter are taking care of that.

[#] Wed Jul 24 2013 09:32:47 EDT from fleeb @ Uncensored

[Reply] [ReplyQuoted] [Headers] [Print]


Yeah, actually, I think I read that he paid them to get into an accident so that he could rescue them.

*shrugs*

[#] Thu Jul 25 2013 10:48:58 EDT from LoanShark @ Uncensored

[Reply] [ReplyQuoted] [Headers] [Print]


Well, time for the civil lawsuit to get started. The case was most appropriate for a civil wrongful death lawsuit in the first place; I suppose you could have made a case for manslaughter although self-defense would have to have been overcome.

Here's hoping they find enough damages against Zimmerman to keep him paying it off for a long, long time.

[#] Thu Jul 25 2013 11:14:19 EDT from IGnatius T Foobar @ Uncensored

[Reply] [ReplyQuoted] [Headers] [Print]

Here's hoping that Al Sharpton gets hit by a million bullets in the not too distant future. If it weren't for race baiters, you wouldn't even know the names Zimmerman and Trayvon.

[#] Thu Jul 25 2013 12:18:40 EDT from LoanShark @ Uncensored

[Reply] [ReplyQuoted] [Headers] [Print]


If it weren't for a clueless and incompetent coward, Martin would still be alive.

[#] Thu Jul 25 2013 14:44:44 EDT from vince-q @ Uncensored

[Reply] [ReplyQuoted] [Headers] [Print]

Jul 25 2013 7:48am from LoanShark @uncnsrd

Well, time for the civil lawsuit to get started. The case was most
appropriate for a civil wrongful death lawsuit in the first place; I
suppose you could have made a case for manslaughter although
self-defense would have to have been overcome.

Here's hoping they find enough damages against Zimmerman to keep him

paying it off for a long, long time.



They won't get a dime.
In fact, they won't even make it to trial.

1, the criminal court found Zimmerman not guilty by reason of self defense to the charge of 2nd Degree Murder and the lesser charge of Manslaughter.
2. Zimmerman's lawyers will raise the 'Stand Your Ground' issue in *any* civil litigation.
3. In Florida, upon a successful Stand Your Ground hearing, the potential civil defendant (in this case Zimmerman) is ****immune**** from civil litigation arising out of the incident. Period. Done.

On the other hand, if **Zimmerman** decides to litigate, he can take aim against the deep pockets of PMSNBCBSABCNN for slander/libel involving the "editing" of the emergency dispatch call recording to make Zimmerman look like a racist. All the major "news
" networks aired that doctored recording, multiple times. And they are all civilly liable. And they all should be sued. And if sued, Zimmerman **will** win.

[#] Thu Jul 25 2013 14:45:12 EDT from vince-q @ Uncensored

[Reply] [ReplyQuoted] [Headers] [Print]

Jul 25 2013 9:18am from LoanShark @uncnsrd

If it weren't for a clueless and incompetent coward, Martin would
still be alive.



Barack Obama was there????????????

[#] Thu Jul 25 2013 15:04:51 EDT from LoanShark @ Uncensored

[Reply] [ReplyQuoted] [Headers] [Print]

3. In Florida, upon a successful Stand Your Ground hearing, the
potential civil defendant (in this case Zimmerman) is ****immune****

from civil litigation arising out of the incident. Period. Done.

Hmm interesting analysis. you've done better than the typical right-winger who will spew unproven facts about the altercation that supposedly either preclude or doom a civil trial...

Here's where I'm not completely convinced, though: a successful stand-your-ground hearing would have also made Zimmerman immune from *criminal* prosecution.


Zimmerman, clearly, did not have a successful stand-your-ground hearing leading up to the criminal case.

N.b., the criminal case turned on simple self-defense, rather than stand your ground (Zimmerman had no opportunity to retreat, as he was pinned against a sidewalk, making stand your ground irrelevant and turning the case on simple self-defense.)


Crucially, a stand-your-ground defense may not be available to a defendant who may have instigated an altercation. It was not available to Zimmerman in the criminal case for precisely that reason. There remain undisputed facts about the altercation that color Zimmerman's conduct as an initial aggressor.

I suppose the criminal case may weigh in his favor the second time around, but not necessarily. Remember OJ's case! It'll be interesting to see how this works out.

[#] Thu Jul 25 2013 15:09:53 EDT from LoanShark @ Uncensored

[Reply] [ReplyQuoted] [Headers] [Print]


Oooh, his lawyers actually didn't file for a stand-your-ground hearing at all, they ran out of time according to one article.

We'll see.

Same article says: "Winter Springs attorney Andrew Chmelir, who has handled but lost one criminal "stand your ground" case, said it's impossible to predict the outcome of such a claim in a Zimmerman civil case."

So we'll see, I guess.

[#] Thu Jul 25 2013 15:58:16 EDT from LoanShark @ Uncensored

[Reply] [ReplyQuoted] [Headers] [Print]


Florida is a comparative fault state:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparative_negligence
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparative_responsibility

This means that if a jury were to find that Zimmerman were *partially* at fault (through a negligence theory), he could have to pay partial damages. (The jury would have to decide on a percentage.)

Negligence is nearly a slam-dunk theory, assuming Zimmerman fails in a stand-your-ground hearing. Everyone agrees he pulled the trigger. Everyone agrees that his actions initially precipitated the situation. His getting involved with "the situation" was entirely a matter of choice.

He was cowardly at several steps along the way. Once he knew that Martin knew he was being followed, it would have been best to announce himself and attempt to resolve the situation through communication. Instead, he continued to slink along behind Martin like a creepy stalker. Not a class act.

He was incompetent in that he preciptated a sitation that he couldn't keep in control of, when he started losing the fight and had to pull his gun.



In my view, a "neighborhood watch" is a watch-through-the-curtains sort of affair. If you're going to actually follow people, you're no longer the neighborhood watch, you are a private security force. You should be in a car with yellow lights and clear markings, in order to avoid just these sorts of misunderstandings.

Zimmerman refused exactly such a setup, in his dealings with the local police while he was setting up the neighborhood watch program.

As a student of criminal justice, he can and should have known better about tactics and how Martin might have reacted to a perceived threat.

As a student of criminal justice, he studied Florida's Stand your Ground law (this was attested to by his own professor, Zimmerman was one of his better students and received an A).

Zimmerman then lied to the police, saying he had no knowledge of Florida's Stand your Ground law.

[#] Thu Jul 25 2013 18:53:01 EDT from LoanShark @ Uncensored

[Reply] [ReplyQuoted] [Headers] [Print]

SPECIAL REPORT: How the Muslim Brotherhood lost Egypt

http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/07/25/us-egypt-mistakes-specialreport-idUSBRE96O07H20130725

rather long but worth the slog...

[#] Thu Jul 25 2013 19:45:32 EDT from vince-q @ Uncensored

[Reply] [ReplyQuoted] [Headers] [Print]


N.b., the criminal case turned on simple self-defense, rather than
stand your ground (Zimmerman had no opportunity to retreat, as he was

pinned against a sidewalk, making stand your ground irrelevant and
turning the case on simple self-defense.)


Florida civil law precedents are ample. Defendant in criminal case need not have used Stand Your Ground in order to request a Stand Your Ground hearing to establish immunity after the criminal trial acquital. Successful use of the "affirmative defense" of Self Defense establishes in court all the elements required for a successful Stand Your Ground hearing.

In the case of Zimmerman it is already established fact (in the legal sense) that he was in peril of iminent death or serious injury (required for the Self Defense argument to prevail). This, as it turns out, is essentially all that would have to be established at the Stand Your Ground hearing. And since the Criminal Court finding is now a citeable court record, the rest is rather simple and will proceed directly to a Stand Your Ground finding and civil immunity for Zimmerman.

How Zimmerman Could End Up Being An Inter-Racial Hero

1. Zimmerman cuts a book/movie deal - you *know* this is going to happen.
2. As part of the deal, Zimmerman voluntarily stipulates that *all* of his share of the proceeds will be divided between two charities, one to be chosen by Zimmerman, the other to be chosen by Travon Martin's parents.
3. End of the Zimmerman "Problem"

Neat byproduct of all this? The Lib-Tards will HATE it! <evil grin>

[#] Thu Jul 25 2013 20:54:26 EDT from Sig @ Uncensored

[Reply] [ReplyQuoted] [Headers] [Print]

Massad Ayoob is an instructor (civilian, LE, and military) and expert
witness on shooting and defense issues. He was contacted with regard to
the Zimmerman trial with the aim of being called as an expert witness,
but that ended up not happening. He did follow it pretty closely and
has a series of posts on his observations.

Starting here:
http://backwoodshome.com/blogs/MassadAyoob/2013/07/13/the-zimmerman-verdict-part-1/

That's an introductory post. The others:
Pt 2: The "Unarmed Teen"
Pt 3: "Who Started it?"
Pt 4: The Stand Your Ground Element
Pt 5: The Gun Stuff
Pt 6: "What If" Versus "What is"
Pt 7: Why the Jury Didn't Learn About Trayvon Martin

Some pretty interesting stuff, and it goes into the evidentiary rules
and standards a little, but not in too much hideous detail.

Definitely worth a read. I think the media coverage of this entire
circus was disgusting. For my money, I think GZ made some pretty poor
decisions, but most of the blame for TM lies with TM.

[#] Thu Jul 25 2013 20:55:40 EDT from Sig @ Uncensored

[Reply] [ReplyQuoted] [Headers] [Print]

Definitely worth a read. I think the media coverage of this entire
circus was disgusting. For my money, I think GZ made some pretty poor

decisions, but most of the blame for TM lies with TM.

Err, should read "blame for TM's death lies with TM."


[#] Thu Jul 25 2013 21:11:03 EDT from LoanShark @ Uncensored

[Reply] [ReplyQuoted] [Headers] [Print]

(required for the Self Defense argument to prevail). This, as it turns

out, is essentially all that would have to be established at the Stand


Not "essentially all."


First, here's the entire text of the relevant section:

776.012.Use of force in defense of person..A person is justified in using force, except deadly force, against another when and to the extent that the person reasonably believes that such conduct is necessary to defend himself or herself or another against the other.s imminent use of unlawful force. However, a person is justified in the use of deadly force and does not have a duty to retreat if:
(1).He or she reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the imminent commission of a forcible felony; or
(2).Under those circumstances permitted pursuant to s. 776.013.

But wait a minute. This gives rise to obvious absurdity:

Suppose I walk up to you, and without explanation or warning, punch you in the face for no reason that is known to you. I start to tackle you to the ground. You fight back, and you start to win. Maybe there happens to be a concrete sidewalk somewhere nearby. I start to panic, because I'm losing a fight that I instigated, and I shoot you dead.

If it doesn't sound to you as if stand your ground should apply there, you'd be right; it doesn't. As an affirmative defense, stand-your-ground is not available to an aggressor who initiates a confrontation. This is a legal fact under Florida law; an initial aggressor almost always has the duty to retreat. There is a caveat; the aggressor must "recover his innocence."

So it sounds to me as if you want to apply 776.012 in isolation, but it turns out that you can't do that without also applying other sections of Florida law that define the duties of an initial aggressor.

So what happened in the criminal case? Interesting question, I'm not sure the precise answer. But here are some possibilities.

(1) The jury determined that Zimmerman was not an initial aggressor (a conclusion which I would dispute; Martin would have been reasonable to perceive Zimmerman as a threat, for reasons adequately outlined elsewhere.)
(2) The jury determined that Zimmerman was an initial aggressor, but recovered his innocence. One of the ways this can happen is if he was attacked with disproportionate force to any threat he made or action he took.
(3) The jury determined that Zimmerman was an initial aggressor, but squeezed him through the door of reasonable doubt on the question of recovering his innocence, essentially deciding that the defense had proven its claim of imminent peril, and that sufficient doubt remained around the prosection's burden of proof that he had NOT "recovered his innocence."

[#] Thu Jul 25 2013 21:13:58 EDT from LoanShark @ Uncensored

[Reply] [ReplyQuoted] [Headers] [Print]

somehow, an unedited copy of that previous message was posted. It was
not supposed to have been posted.

Here's the intended version of the post.


(required for the Self Defense argument to prevail). This, as it turns
out, is essentially all that would have to be established at the Stand

Not "essentially all."

First, here's the entire text of the relevant section:

"776.012.Use of force in defense of person..A person is justified in
using force, except deadly force, against another when and to the extent
that the person reasonably believes that such conduct is necessary to
defend himself or herself or another against the other.s imminent use of
unlawful force. However, a person is justified in the use of deadly
force and does not have a duty to retreat if:
(1).He or she reasonably believes that such force is necessary to
prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself
or herself or
another or to prevent the imminent commission of a forcible felony; or
(2).Under those circumstances permitted pursuant to s. 776.013."

But wait a minute. This gives rise to obvious absurdity:

Suppose I walk up to you, and without explanation or warning, punch you
in the face for no reason that is known to you. I start to tackle you to
the ground. You fight back, and you start to win. Maybe there happens to
be a concrete sidewalk somewhere nearby. I start to panic, because I'm
losing a fight that I instigated, and I shoot you dead.

If it doesn't sound to you as if stand your ground should apply there,
you'd be right; it doesn't. As an affirmative defense, stand-your-ground
is not available to an aggressor who initiates a confrontation. Under
Florida law, an initial aggressor has the duty to retreat, unless use of
force is excessive. (776.041)

So it sounds
to me as if you want to apply 776.012 in isolation, but it
turns out that you can't do that without first considering 776.041.

This was argued in the criminal case, and jury instruction on the
aggressor doctrine was excluded, effectively forbidding the Jury from
considering Zimmerman's conduct prior to the beginning of the fistfight.

The judge *in the criminal case* made that finding of fact (and judges
aren't supposed to find facts), bearing in mind the quality of evidence
that had been presented by both sides, and chose to ignore the
prosecution's colorable argument that Zimmerman was an aggressor even
based on the facts that were not in dispute. (I don't think the
prosecution did a good-enough job here; he should have pounded the fact
that Zimmerman admittedly did not explain himself to Martin.)

So there's where us reasonable, reality-based people are shaking our
heads
sadly.

Crucially, a civil case has differing standards of proof (esp Florida
which allows comparative fault in a civil trial, or the notion that both
Zimmerman and Martin might be to blame for creating the altercation)
under which the determination on the aggressor doctrine might go the
other way. That is one reason why there is ample precedent for civil
suits that do not reach the same conclusions as preceding criminal
trials. And: if the criminal trial's jury was not allowed to consider
the aggressor doctrine, then no facts were found (in the legal sense)
with respect to the aggressor question TO carry over to a civil trial.

[#] Thu Jul 25 2013 22:22:53 EDT from Sig @ Uncensored

[Reply] [ReplyQuoted] [Headers] [Print]

One of the key points Ayoob makes is that there was essentially no
evidence to point to anything other than that Zimmerman's version of
events was correct with regard to who started an altercation. I'm
quoting because I think this is a key point:

From Pt 6:
http://backwoodshome.com/blogs/MassadAyoob/2013/07/23/the-zimmerman-verdict-part-6-what-if-versus-what-is/

---
What if it turned out that Zimmerman had made the first
confrontation and pulled his gun on Martin, causing Martin to jump him
and beat him in self-defense? That WOULD have been justifiable for
Martin but there is ABSOLUTELY NO EVIDENCE TO INDICATE THAT IT DID
HAPPEN. Stop and think: would a man hungry to kill, with a loaded gun
already in his hand, have taken the savage beating Zimmerman did, for at
least 40 seconds, before firing?
----

And more on "who started it" in Pt 3:
http://backwoodshome.com/blogs/MassadAyoob/2013/07/17/zimmerman-verdict-part-3-who-started-it/


----
Keeping
an eye on someone from a distance is not against the law.
Leaving the safety and mobility of your vehicle when suspicious unknown
people are around may not be the best tactical move, but is no evidence
of wrongdoing or intent to confront.

Who struck the first blow? Virtually all the evidence supports
Zimmerman's account; no evidence contradicts it, and no evidence
supports the theory that Zimmerman assaulted Martin first, in any way.
If as some conjecture Zimmerman had drawn the gun at the first, why did
he wait until his scalp had been split open on the sidewalk and his nose
smashed before he pulled the trigger? And if Martin really believed he
was in danger from the man watching him, why didn't he simply call
the police from the phone he was already speaking on?
-----

[#] Thu Jul 25 2013 22:24:58 EDT from Sig @ Uncensored

[Reply] [ReplyQuoted] [Headers] [Print]

I meant to add that just because they didn't have any evidence doesn't
mean that GZ didn't actually act as the aggressor in some way that would
alter the equation, but you can't (and shouldn't) convict someone on
what you think could have theoretically happened.

Go to page: [1] 2 3 4 5 ... Last