Author Topic: George Zimmerman (Read 71218 times)

dirah · « **Reply #440 on:** July 23, 2013, 09:53:28 AM »

Quote from: CountValentine on July 23, 2013, 06:45:44 AM

From day one I said not guilty. Are you saying if your not 100% sure then that is reasonable doubt?

If you are 99% sure something happened a certain way, then the 1% alternative is not necessarily reasonable doubt.
But your post makes it sounds like your are no where close to 99%.

Ergel · « **Reply #441 on:** July 23, 2013, 09:55:34 AM »

Quote from: CountValentine on July 23, 2013, 03:54:58 AM

...but he did not have a knife only skittles.

But were they kosher?

CountValentine · « **Reply #442 on:** July 23, 2013, 10:38:01 AM »

Quote from: Ergel on July 23, 2013, 09:55:34 AM

But were they kosher?

Do you think he could afford "kosher"?

Chaikel · « **Reply #443 on:** July 23, 2013, 10:38:28 AM »

Quote from: CountValentine on July 23, 2013, 10:38:01 AM

Do you think he could afford "kosher"?

Racist

CountValentine · « **Reply #444 on:** July 23, 2013, 10:40:51 AM »

Quote from: dirah on July 23, 2013, 09:53:28 AM

If you are 99% sure something happened a certain way, then the 1% alternative is not necessarily reasonable doubt.
But your post makes it sounds like your are no where close to 99%.

I am 99% sure if there was no gun involved they would both be alive today. I am also over 99% sure I would not have shot him and we all know me to be a reasonable person.

Ergel · « **Reply #445 on:** July 23, 2013, 10:42:24 AM »

Quote from: Chaikel on July 23, 2013, 10:38:28 AM

Racist

+1

Ergel · « **Reply #446 on:** July 23, 2013, 10:43:22 AM »

Quote from: CountValentine on July 23, 2013, 10:40:51 AM

I am 99% sure if there was no gun involved they would both be alive today. I am also over 99% sure I would not have shot him and we all know me to be a reasonable person.

I agree. The only variable is the gun. Let's say he was reaching for the gun. That's a whole different story

CountValentine · « **Reply #447 on:** July 23, 2013, 10:46:05 AM »

Quote from: Chaikel on July 23, 2013, 10:38:28 AM

Racist

Quote from: Ergel on July 23, 2013, 10:42:24 AM

+1

It is called "profiling" the same thing Zim did.

Ergel · « **Reply #448 on:** July 23, 2013, 10:47:38 AM »

Quote from: CountValentine on July 23, 2013, 10:46:05 AM

It is called "profiling" the same thing Zim did.

Trust me, I have no problem with it. I am a big believer in racial profiling

AJK · « **Reply #449 on:** July 23, 2013, 11:34:02 AM »

Racial profiling, despite all the liberal bluster to the contrary, is extremely effective. For that reason alone, I'd call it appropriate in the right context.

Chaikel · « **Reply #450 on:** July 23, 2013, 12:08:06 PM »

Quote from: AJK on July 23, 2013, 11:34:02 AM

Racial profiling, despite all the liberal bluster to the contrary, is extremely effective. For that reason alone, I'd call it appropriate in the right context.

its a product of evolution. I heard Darwin gets sued all the time

henche · « **Reply #451 on:** July 23, 2013, 12:20:10 PM »

Quote from: Hirshthg on July 22, 2013, 06:40:20 PM

Link to the Jury instructions.
http://www.flcourts18.org/PDF/Press_Releases/Zimmerman_Final_Jury_Instructions.pdf

Note, even if TM was only committing a Felony against GZ and not threatening his life at all, he would have had the right to shot TM. This assault was a felony. You will notice that the defense does not make this point, simply because it is unpopular.

Ok. So the statute in 776.08 defines Forcible Felony, but it doesn't help much because it defines it as:

Quote

“Forcible felony” means treason; murder; manslaughter; sexual battery; carjacking; home-invasion robbery; robbery; burglary; arson; kidnapping; aggravated assault; aggravated battery; aggravated stalking; aircraft piracy; unlawful throwing, placing, or discharging of a destructive device or bomb; and any other felony which involves the use or threat of physical force or violence against any individual.

So we need to look up when use of physical force against a person is a felony. So battery is generally a misdemeanor. But it becomes a felony battery when it "Causes great bodily harm, permanent disability, or permanent disfigurement"--which seems very much like the common law definition of grievous bodily injury. So I think the addition of protection against forcible felony doesn't add much.

(Note: it does include rape, but that is anyway included in the common law definition. Query if it would include third degree felony battery which is a battery by a person who has a prior conviction for battery--it probably wouldn't because that's stupid.)

bestwatchman · « **Reply #452 on:** July 23, 2013, 04:29:49 PM »

George Zimmerman's first time being spotted in public since his trial. He effectively risked his life to help a random family in a flipped suv.

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=2&cad=rja&ved=0CDgQqQIwAQ&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.usatoday.com%2Fstory%2Fnews%2Fnation%2F2013%2F07%2F22%2Fsanford-zimmerman-rescue%2F2575217%2F&ei=oOfuUeyyN6KRygGkx4CgDg&usg=AFQjCNEDYyvi1zRe2b-WGAtE7pW-O56eHA&sig2=exmcmMTsrZBuHXud3MhrGQ&bvm=bv.49641647,d.aWc

Hirshthg · « **Reply #453 on:** July 24, 2013, 12:10:45 AM »

Quote from: henche on July 23, 2013, 07:49:30 AM

I need to look into this more. This is odd--I did not know you could use deadly force to prevent any forcible felony. The jury instructions don't define what a felony is, which seems ridiculous. Let me look up what felony battery is in FL. I'm getting on plane now though

The jury doesn't know a lot of things, that is why they are the jury and not the judge.

Quote from: CountValentine on July 23, 2013, 10:40:51 AM

I am 99% sure if there was no gun involved they would both be alive today. I am also over 99% sure I would not have shot him and we all know me to be a reasonable person.

If TM could pound his head in the cement for 40 sec, can you have a reasonable fear that he would have continued on for another 3 minutes?