(07-07-2013, 09:54 AM)BlueTiki Wrote: [ -> ]As much as the Skittles lovers try and deny it, the arrest and trial IS about perceived racial inequity and injustice.
I don't know, the fact T was an unarmed teenager is the main reason I support his case the fact he was a nigger is actually of little consequence to me.
T could have been a cracker, spic, chink, kike, wop or bush nigger I would still have supported his case.
I have a feeling the black folks in Sanford are planning their riots and free flat screens already. No matter what the verdict is. It will not be an organized riot because they are not an organized lot. This trial is an excuse to get "what they have been denied" I would advise all shop owners to "stand their ground" Also it will probably not be a local event, it will be state wide.
I had a feeling about what was going to happen following the Rodney King verdict and didn't agree with predictions of all hell breaking loose if OJ Simpson and Casey Anthony were found not guilty.
I don't believe that the Zimmerman verdict will result in riots or George Zimmerman being relentlessly stalked and/or targeted (but, yeah, I do remember the dumb ass New Black Panthers "bounty" before Zimmerman was charged).
There will probably be a few dipshits going off the rails after the verdict, as usual with an emotional high profile trial.
You may well be right, Maggot. But, I very much hope you're wrong.
There will probably be a few, That particular bunch is always looking for something for nothing and stealing is a lot better than working for it.
Sanford is a pretty small place, I don't expect a lot of excitement there. There are lots of twitter feeds from all over the place, folks threatening to riot and raid the mall.
Ignorant bastards
It's right above Orlando and I will be there on Monday. I hope no verdict comes in while I'm down there.
The defense is presenting a case and witnesses after all.
Closing arguments will take place after that.
Then, verdict deliberations.
Don't think a verdict will be delivered until mid week, at the earliest.
(07-08-2013, 01:49 AM)Older Than Dirt Wrote: [ -> ]http://abcnews.go.com/US/george-zimmerma...dpS3TvQrQy
Thanks, OTD. I read it. I don't like it but I guess I agree with Dan. It's hard to swallow. I want George to pay for what he did but like I said last week, one way or another George WILL pay, if not through the courts then through life in general. It will be a long time before he stops looking over his shoulder and you know damn well he'll be packing his weapon every place he goes.
(07-08-2013, 06:28 AM)Duchess Wrote: [ -> ] (07-08-2013, 01:49 AM)Older Than Dirt Wrote: [ -> ]http://abcnews.go.com/US/george-zimmerma...dpS3TvQrQy
Thanks, OTD. I read it. I don't like it but I guess I agree with Dan. It's hard to swallow. I want George to pay for what he did but like I said last week, one way or another George WILL pay, if not through the courts then through life in general. It will be a long time before he stops looking over his shoulder and you know damn well he'll be packing his weapon every place he goes.
Dan's conclusion is wrong.
Quote:To be clear, if we were talking about Florida's controversial Stand Your Ground Law, who initiated the encounter would be crucial and the defendant would have the burden to prove that he should not be held legally responsible for the shooting. That law, which can protect a shooter from even going to trial, wasn't designed for someone who starts a fight and then loses the fight he initiated.
Zimmerman waived a pre-trial Stand Your Ground hearing and went directly to trial (likely because his lawyers knew they would lose) and simply argued classic self-defense, which is different. Now no matter how it started, if Zimmerman shot Martin because he reasonably believed it was the only way to protect himself from "great bodily harm" then he is not guilty. That's the law.
Just because George waived the pretrial hearing for immunity, the law no longer applies? Really? That is bullshit. And that is not the law.
George will have to convince the jury that he was not the initial aggressor, or that Trayvon overpowered poor helpless George to the point that George could not retreat.
That's what puzzled me adub, because he waived the pretrial hearing he gets given a get out of jail free card?
That can't be justice can it? Surely not?
It seems to be sending the message if you shoot someone make sure you waste them and there as few witnesses as possible then its your word against a dead mans.
Won't it matter at all that George brought this on himself, that he instigated this? Surely that would play a role in any conclusions reached.
Apart from a few unclear and unconclusive witness reports Zimmermans version of events is the only version of events. At least thats what some commentators seem to be saying anyway.
(07-08-2013, 08:21 AM)Cynical Ninja Wrote: [ -> ]That's what puzzled me adub, because he waived the pretrial hearing he gets given a get out of jail free card?
That can't be justice can it? Surely not?
Abram's article was full of nonsense. I just pointed out that his conclusion was flawed.
(07-08-2013, 08:29 AM)Cynical Ninja Wrote: [ -> ]Apart from a few unclear and unconclusive witness reports Zimmermans version of events is the only version of events. At least thats what some commentators seem to be saying anyway.
Yea, and all of GZs statements are consistent. Or at least consistent enough. What they don't seem to get is that George's statements are not consistent with the evidence. That is a big problem for the big fat liar.
I have no idea who the defense is planning on calling as witnesses, but GZs best chance is to get in a bunch of hired experts to muddy up the forensics.
(07-08-2013, 08:16 AM)Adub Wrote: [ -> ] (07-08-2013, 06:28 AM)Duchess Wrote: [ -> ] (07-08-2013, 01:49 AM)Older Than Dirt Wrote: [ -> ]http://abcnews.go.com/US/george-zimmerma...dpS3TvQrQy
Thanks, OTD. I read it. I don't like it but I guess I agree with Dan. It's hard to swallow. I want George to pay for what he did but like I said last week, one way or another George WILL pay, if not through the courts then through life in general. It will be a long time before he stops looking over his shoulder and you know damn well he'll be packing his weapon every place he goes.
Dan's conclusion is wrong.
Quote:To be clear, if we were talking about Florida's controversial Stand Your Ground Law, who initiated the encounter would be crucial and the defendant would have the burden to prove that he should not be held legally responsible for the shooting. That law, which can protect a shooter from even going to trial, wasn't designed for someone who starts a fight and then loses the fight he initiated.
Zimmerman waived a pre-trial Stand Your Ground hearing and went directly to trial (likely because his lawyers knew they would lose) and simply argued classic self-defense, which is different. Now no matter how it started, if Zimmerman shot Martin because he reasonably believed it was the only way to protect himself from "great bodily harm" then he is not guilty. That's the law.
Just because George waived the pretrial hearing for immunity, the law no longer applies? Really? That is bullshit. And that is not the law.
George will have to convince the jury that he was not the initial aggressor, or that Trayvon overpowered poor helpless George to the point that George could not retreat.
The burden of proof is on the prosecution, not the defense. The prosecution has to prove that George started the fight. They have to make their case and it doesn't sound like they have.
By waiving the pretrial hearing on SYG, the defense goes in clean without the burden of Something proven against him.
Z may walk
(07-08-2013, 08:16 AM)Adub Wrote: [ -> ]Dan's conclusion is wrong.
Really?
Show me where.
Abrams has been watching the same trial as I. I agree with his analysis and have the same understanding of the laws and how they apply to this case.
I particularly agree with his closing paragraph:
With all of this said, juries are notoriously impossible to predict and the deliberation process can take on a life of its own, but if they follow the letter of the law, it's hard to see, based on everything we know now, how they find him guilty of either murder or even manslaughter.
Some/all of the jurors could be viewing witnesses and testimony differently than Abrams and I.
And, there are still witnesses remaining and closing arguments to consider; what we know now isn't everything that the jury will have seen/heard before deliberations begin.
The fate of George Zimmerman will be known soon enough; maybe by end of this week?
(07-08-2013, 09:46 AM)BlueTiki Wrote: [ -> ] (07-08-2013, 08:16 AM)Adub Wrote: [ -> ]Dan's conclusion is wrong.
Really?
Show me where.
Abram's says that the Florida statute commonly called SYG does not apply to George because George is claiming simple-self defense.
The so called SYG statute is the only self-defense statute in Florida. It is the law in Florida for any self-defense claim. So what he said was bullshit.
Look it up.
CRIMES
Chapter 776
JUSTIFIABLE USE OF FORCE
776.012
And here is the disclaimer to justifiable homicide that George has to over come.
776.041 Use of force by aggressor
None of George's witnesses want to admit that fat fuck is running, as in chasing T. Assholes.