DaVinci 0 #2101 June 7, 2012 QuoteWhich is a bit of a silly statement in a thread where the alleged thug is unarmed and the supposed hero civilian was armed. Not when you read the whole post I was replying to.... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Southern_Man 0 #2102 June 7, 2012 QuoteQuote Contrary to how it's portrayed in this thread, the circumstances are about a clearly defined as is possible for this sort of law. I'm seeing lawyers on both sides of the fence disputing the law and the law being applied unevenly where interpretations by different courts result in different applications in similar situations. I don't think you can reasonably dispute that. That is what is telling me that the SYG law was not well enough written to be more specific with regards to limiting those interpretations. Yes, you could probably dispute MY interpretation of what I'm seeing. Well, either the law isn't clear or the cops, prosecutors, and courts and not applying it as intended. The Tampa Bay article reported that cops refused to charge somebody who shot another person in a drug deal gone bad. It looks pretty evident to me that SYG is not available to people who are engaged in illegal activities at the time, so either it isn't as clear as it should be or the police are just ignoring it in making a decline to charge decision. Likewise, I think it is clear in the law that you can intentionally provoke a physical confrontation and then shoot the person once it has escalated. I don't think that is right."What if there were no hypothetical questions?" Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
tkhayes 142 #2103 June 7, 2012 Quote Anyone that wants to protect themselves and wants the ability to be as armed as the criminals is a "douchebag" in your opinion. No what I said was 'wannabee cops', with guns, protecting the neighborhood on behalf of others, whether or not they want to be protected, are douchebags. in my opinion. And yes, my personal bias IS showing - that's what the forum is about Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
tkhayes 142 #2104 June 7, 2012 QuoteBolded is the only part of your whole post that has an fact. Apparently you missed all the discussions since that post and the fact that his defense team apologized for several of their 'misgivings'. Either way, your opinion does not matter - neither does mine. The court disagrees with your position and said as much. You can choose to dislike it all you want, just as I have chosen to be 'OK' with their decision. he's a fucking douchebag. He has a lock-tight, water-tight, clear-cut, easy way to get out of this - shut the fuck up and do exactly as the court tells you to do and when they tell you to do it. It's the State that will have to prove him guilty, likely they will not, unless witness statements start to go against him (not likely) but instead, he is fucking up already, as I said prior -making him a douchebag. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
normiss 635 #2105 June 7, 2012 I heard in some Orlando news yesterday that a key witness that backs him up has died too..... You're right about his current position - he better stop backing into a fucked corner or he's...well, fucked! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Shotgun 1 #2106 June 7, 2012 QuoteHe has a lock-tight, water-tight, clear-cut, easy way to get out of this - shut the fuck up and do exactly as the court tells you to do and when they tell you to do it. Not really. Trayvon's girlfriend's description of her phone conversation with him is in conflict with Zimmerman's description of what happened. It pretty much backs up the idea that GZ pursued and confronted TM, so I don't really think he has an easy out. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DaVinci 0 #2107 June 7, 2012 QuoteApparently you missed all the discussions since that post and the fact that his defense team apologized for several of their 'misgivings'. Defense team != Zimmerman. You are calling Zimmerman a 'douchebag' for the acts of someone else. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
normiss 635 #2108 June 7, 2012 Your honor, I object to that testimony as hearsay. The court will most likely not allow this into evidence. You cannot testify to what another person said. Her story changed anyway. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Shotgun 1 #2109 June 7, 2012 QuoteYou cannot testify to what another person said. So Zimmerman won't be able to testify about anything that Martin said to him? And the other witnesses can't testify that they heard someone saying, "Help"? Or about anything else that Zimmerman said to them? I've been on a trial. There was a lot of testimony from witnesses about what other people said. So I'm not sure where you're getting that from? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
matthewcline 0 #2110 June 7, 2012 She could testify as to what Trayvon said to her (which she changed as the National News and Reverend's came in to the story), but could not swear to what Zimmerman said (unless she could prove she could hear him). The actual lawyers here can spell it out clearer, but I would imagine she would be limited in her testimony, and if the Defense gets her original version they could cancel out any thing she says now. MattAn Instructors first concern is student safety. So, start being safe, first!!! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Shotgun 1 #2111 June 7, 2012 QuoteShe could testify as to what Trayvon said to her (which she changed as the National News and Reverend's came in to the story), I've only heard one version of her story. What was it that she changed? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
normiss 635 #2112 June 7, 2012 A number of criminal defense attorneys that have discussed this case in depth have all referred to the 6th Amendment issues as well as the State's Hearsay Exception rules: hearsay exception mandates that the trial court “must first find, in a hearing, that ‘the time, content, and circumstances of the statement provide sufficient safeguards of reliability" Given that she has changed her story, the reliability of the testimony is at question. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
GeorgiaDon 340 #2113 June 7, 2012 QuoteNo, he lost one and got a new one. He turned in one and forgot about having the other one... Last I read he was not even sure where the other one is. You are misinformed. Three days before the April 20 bond hearing, in a phone conversation with his wife from the Seminole County jail (so the conversation was recorded) he told his wife where to look for the passport, and she told him she already had it and had put it in a safe deposit box. (Link here). Do you actually believe that on April 17 he discussed the passport with his wife, and specifically told her to hide it, and then only THREE DAYS LATER, when his lawyer assured the court that he had no other passport besides the almost expired one he turned in, he had completely forgotten about the conversation, or that he ever had the second passport at all? It's now being claimed that he gave the second passport to his lawyer, who somehow then also forgot about it. When was the second passport turned over to his lawyers? Why did he not remind his lawyer about the second passport when that lawyer wrongfully assured the court there was no other passport besides the on that was turned over, which had only one month left before it expired. Does anyone believe in an amnesia-inducing passport, that somehow both Zimmerman and his lawyer forgot about despite discussing it (in Zimmerman's case) only 3 days before? Isn't it more likely that Zimmerman turned over the passport after it's existence was revealed by the prosecution, and his lawyer is put in the position of taking responsibility for it because to do otherwise would be to concede that his client lied to him and to the court? QuoteHe didn't disclose the amount he had gotten from his defense fund. Big deal, his lawyer has control over it. One more time, he turned control of the account over to his lawyers five days after the bond hearing (so on April 25th). On April 12th he discussed with his wife (again, the call was recorded; same link as above) how she could get access to the account. On the 16th in another recorded conversation with his wife, who is at the credit union, he assists her to change the password so she can access the account. After that, she transferred $135,000 from the paypal account to her own account, and that money was later moved into other accounts controlled by family members. Yet, at the bond hearing on the 20th, his wife testified that the family was indigent, and Zimmerman sat there and said nothing, because he had orchestrated the scheme. I don't know who is legally culpable in the Martin/Zimmerman incident, the courts will have to try to sort that out. However it seems quite clear that Zimmerman lied to his attorneys and to the court, to get favorable bail conditions. He seems to have you bamboozled, too. Don_____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Shotgun 1 #2114 June 7, 2012 QuoteGiven that she has changed her story, the reliability of the testimony is at question. I can't seem to find anything about her changing her story. Do you know what was changed? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
normiss 635 #2115 June 7, 2012 I'll have to dig some more, but IIRC, her first statement was made to the Martin family attorney, which is part of the reason for doubt as I understand, then later made a sworn testimony to the investigators. Depending on the story, there is some discrepancy between the two statements, as well as possible confirmation that he had eluded Zimmerman then challenged Zimmerman. Some thoughts are this validates the story Zimmerman gave that he did stop following Martin, then was confronted by Martin. So many different stories. It will be interesting to see what/who is allowed for testimony. If it goes to that. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
matthewcline 0 #2116 June 7, 2012 QuoteI'll have to dig some more, but IIRC, her first statement was made to the Martin family attorney, which is part of the reason for doubt as I understand, then later made a sworn testimony to the investigators. Depending on the story, there is some discrepancy between the two statements, as well as possible confirmation that he had eluded Zimmerman then challenged Zimmerman. Some thoughts are this validates the story Zimmerman gave that he did stop following Martin, then was confronted by Martin. So many different stories. It will be interesting to see what/who is allowed for testimony. If it goes to that. She also did a phone interview with a host on CNN or HLN, in which she stated that Trayvon said he was going to go ask that mother fucker what his problem was, or words to that effect. She had since stopped telling that story. If that first version is true, it confirms (to some degree) Zimmerman's story; he lost Trayvon and was heading back to his vehicle, when Trayvon approached him. MattAn Instructors first concern is student safety. So, start being safe, first!!! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Shotgun 1 #2117 June 7, 2012 QuoteShe also did a phone interview with a host on CNN or HLN, in which she stated that Trayvon said he was going to go ask that mother fucker what his problem was, or words to that effect. She had since stopped telling that story. I can't find anything at all about this. The closest thing that comes up is some blogger speculating that what if Trayvon had really said something like, "This mother fucker is gonna be sorry he messed with me?" Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
sundevil777 94 #2118 June 7, 2012 Quotehe's a fucking douchebag The prosecutor Angela Corey is: http://www.newsmax.com/Newswidget/Zimmerman-Trayvon-Angela-Corey/2012/06/05/id/441305?promo_code=EB8D-1%20&utm_source=NationalReview&utm_medium=nmwidget&utm_campaign=widgetphase1 It is a newsmax article (no pretense of being unbiased, but is written by Alan Dershowitz himself - not a conservative). QuoteState Attorney Angela Corey, the prosecutor in the George Zimmerman case, recently called the Dean of Harvard Law School to complain about my criticism of some of her actions. She was transferred to the Office of Communications and proceeded to engage in a 40-minute rant, during which she threatened to sue Harvard Law School, to try to get me disciplined by the Bar Association and to file charges against me for libel and slander.People are sick and tired of being told that ordinary and decent people are fed up in this country with being sick and tired. I’m certainly not, and I’m sick and tired of being told that I am Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #2119 June 7, 2012 heh - before threatening someone like Deshowitz, one should really ask the question - am I tall enough to open my mouth? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
sundevil777 94 #2120 June 8, 2012 Quoteheh - before threatening someone like Deshowitz, one should really ask the question - am I tall enough to open my mouth? Dershowitz describes in detail how the prosecutor was so angry because she misled the court, leaving out the injuries to GZ that she did know about.People are sick and tired of being told that ordinary and decent people are fed up in this country with being sick and tired. I’m certainly not, and I’m sick and tired of being told that I am Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #2121 June 8, 2012 QuoteQuote Contrary to how it's portrayed in this thread, the circumstances are about a clearly defined as is possible for this sort of law. I'm seeing lawyers on both sides of the fence disputing the law and the law being applied unevenly where interpretations by different courts result in different applications in similar situations. I don't think you can reasonably dispute that. That is what is telling me that the SYG law was not well enough written to be more specific with regards to limiting those interpretations. Yes, you could probably dispute MY interpretation of what I'm seeing. Here's the applicable statute: "A person who is not engaged in an unlawful activity and who is attacked in any other place where he or she has a right to be has no duty to retreat and has the right to stand his or her ground and meet force with force, including deadly force if he or she reasonably believes it is necessary to do so to prevent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the commission of a forcible felony." How are you going to re-write it to 'be more specific with regards to limiting interpretations'?Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
popsjumper 2 #2122 June 8, 2012 QuoteQuoteQuote Contrary to how it's portrayed in this thread, the circumstances are about a clearly defined as is possible for this sort of law. I'm seeing lawyers on both sides of the fence disputing the law and the law being applied unevenly where interpretations by different courts result in different applications in similar situations. I don't think you can reasonably dispute that. That is what is telling me that the SYG law was not well enough written to be more specific with regards to limiting those interpretations. Yes, you could probably dispute MY interpretation of what I'm seeing. Here's the applicable statute: "A person who is not engaged in an unlawful activity and who is attacked in any other place where he or she has a right to be has no duty to retreat and has the right to stand his or her ground and meet force with force, including deadly force if he or she reasonably believes it is necessary to do so to prevent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the commission of a forcible felony." How are you going to re-write it to 'be more specific with regards to limiting interpretations'? Fuck all with sanded lube, dude. I'm not a lawyer. I don't know. Do you? First, I imagine, you'd have to get a good grip on just what interpretations are conflicting with the intent of the law and go from there. How the hell did they come up with a gang banger drug deal qualifies and all those similar stories. Maybe all those stories are fiction. What does it mean: "...attacked in any other place where he or she has a right to be..." (take out the word 'other'?) "...reasonably believes..." (can you define 'reasonably') "...great bodily harm ..." ('great' is ambiguous. Got something else?) ????My reality and yours are quite different. I think we're all Bozos on this bus. Falcon5232, SCS8170, SCSA353, POPS9398, DS239 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #2123 June 8, 2012 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuote Contrary to how it's portrayed in this thread, the circumstances are about a clearly defined as is possible for this sort of law. I'm seeing lawyers on both sides of the fence disputing the law and the law being applied unevenly where interpretations by different courts result in different applications in similar situations. I don't think you can reasonably dispute that. That is what is telling me that the SYG law was not well enough written to be more specific with regards to limiting those interpretations. Yes, you could probably dispute MY interpretation of what I'm seeing. Here's the applicable statute: "A person who is not engaged in an unlawful activity and who is attacked in any other place where he or she has a right to be has no duty to retreat and has the right to stand his or her ground and meet force with force, including deadly force if he or she reasonably believes it is necessary to do so to prevent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the commission of a forcible felony." How are you going to re-write it to 'be more specific with regards to limiting interpretations'? Fuck all with sanded lube, dude. I'm not a lawyer. I don't know. Do you? First, I imagine, you'd have to get a good grip on just what interpretations are conflicting with the intent of the law and go from there. How the hell did they come up with a gang banger drug deal qualifies and all those similar stories. Maybe all those stories are fiction. Reading many of those stories, it looks like the defense threw SYG out there in misguided attempts to get the charges dropped. While I didn't read the gangbanger drug one, since SYG explicitly *denies* the defense when a crime is being committed by the actor it shouldn't count, anyway. QuoteWhat does it mean: "...attacked in any other place where he or she has a right to be... (take out the word 'other'?)" It means being attacked at some venue outside of their own home where they have a legal right to be - a public street, grocery store, etc etc. How does "other" make it confusing? How would removing it 'limit interpretations'? Quote"...reasonably believes..." (can you define 'reasonably') The courts already have - the 'reasonable man' concept. Are you being deliberately obtuse? Quote"...great bodily harm ..." ('great' is ambiguous. Got something else?) What do you want - a specific list of injuries that a victim can check off in the course of getting their head pounded in? "Broken nose" - check. "Broken jaw" - check. "Broken neck" - fuck, can't move my arms anymore to check that one off.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
popsjumper 2 #2124 June 8, 2012 Quote Reading many of those stories, it looks like the defense threw SYG out there in misguided attempts to get the charges dropped. "Misguided" is the key word there. Obviously, the defense lawyer is trying to present different interpretations to the intent. Ahhhhh....interpretation, my friend. Interpretation. I find it hard to believe that any defense attorney worth a damn would intentionally throw up some mindless, off-the-wall BS to a court. Some DO have some integrity. Maybe just not that one, eh? Quote While I didn't read the gangbanger drug one, since SYG explicitly *denies* the defense when a crime is being committed by the actor it shouldn't count, anyway. Agreed. Now we dispute whether or not a crime was actually being committed. In order for SYG to apply you have to assume it wasn't. Ahhhhh....interpretation, my friend. Interpretation. Quote What does it mean: "...attacked in any other place where he or she has a right to be... (take out the word 'other'?)" Quote It means being attacked at some venue outside of their own home where they have a legal right to be - a public street, grocery store, etc etc. How does "other" make it confusing? How would removing it 'limit interpretations'? Two things, - SYG doesn't include inside the home? - It would eliminate the question of what "other' means and would be a more direct statement if it were excluded. Ahhhhh....interpretation, my friend. Interpretation. Quote "...reasonably believes..." (can you define 'reasonably') Quote The courts already have - the 'reasonable man' concept. Are you being deliberately obtuse? Can you converse with me without the sarcastic commentary? No, not obtuse.The interpretation of what "reasonable" means varies from person to person, LEO to LEO, jury to jury and judge to judge...regardless of what other courts have decided. It's a fact of life, not a legal one-size-fits-all. You can see that in our discussions here. Was GZ 'reasonable' in his actions? Yes, no, maybe...it's all over the map. Ahhhhh....interpretation, my friend. Interpretation. Quote "...great bodily harm ..." ('great' is ambiguous. Got something else?) What do you want - a specific list of injuries that a victim can check off in the course of getting their head pounded in? "Broken nose" - check. "Broken jaw" - check. "Broken neck" - fuck, can't move my arms anymore to check that one off. Let's not go off the deep end, Mike. Let's look at it. If you take out "great", you're left with "bodily harm" Sure, now WTF does THAT mean with respect to SYG. It means that ANY damage done or threatened is a viable excuse to apply SYG. I don't think we want to say that so we have to include some qualifier, eh?. So what does "great" mean" Yes, we could all agree that death would be great harm. What about that Broken nose, Broken jaw, Broken neck you mentioned. Where do you draw the line between what is great harm and what is not? I'm sure that OUR interpretation sitting at our keyboards is going to be different that the interpretation given by the guy that's "getting his head pounded in". Ahhhhh....interpretation, my friend. Interpretation.My reality and yours are quite different. I think we're all Bozos on this bus. Falcon5232, SCS8170, SCSA353, POPS9398, DS239 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #2125 June 8, 2012 Quote Quote Reading many of those stories, it looks like the defense threw SYG out there in misguided attempts to get the charges dropped. "Misguided" is the key word there. Obviously, the defense lawyer is trying to present different interpretations to the intent. Ahhhhh....interpretation, my friend. Interpretation. I find it hard to believe that any defense attorney worth a damn would intentionally throw up some mindless, off-the-wall BS to a court. Some DO have some integrity. Maybe just not that one, eh? Quote While I didn't read the gangbanger drug one, since SYG explicitly *denies* the defense when a crime is being committed by the actor it shouldn't count, anyway. Agreed. Now we dispute whether or not a crime was actually being committed. In order for SYG to apply you have to assume it wasn't. Ahhhhh....interpretation, my friend. Interpretation. Quote What does it mean: "...attacked in any other place where he or she has a right to be... (take out the word 'other'?)" Quote It means being attacked at some venue outside of their own home where they have a legal right to be - a public street, grocery store, etc etc. How does "other" make it confusing? How would removing it 'limit interpretations'? Two things, - SYG doesn't include inside the home? - It would eliminate the question of what "other' means and would be a more direct statement if it were excluded. There is already no duty to retreat within the home - SYG expands that to any other place you have a legal right to be. Quote Quote "...reasonably believes..." (can you define 'reasonably') Quote The courts already have - the 'reasonable man' concept. Are you being deliberately obtuse? Can you converse with me without the sarcastic commentary? No, not obtuse.The interpretation of what "reasonable" means varies from person to person, LEO to LEO, jury to jury and judge to judge...regardless of what other courts have decided. It's a fact of life, not a legal one-size-fits-all. You can see that in our discussions here. Was GZ 'reasonable' in his actions? Yes, no, maybe...it's all over the map. Ahhhhh....interpretation, my friend. Interpretation. I wasn't being sarcastic. The 'reasonable man' concept is widely used in law. Per uslegal.com: "Reasonable man is a term commonly used in tort and criminal law. The Laws of England place great weight on the Reasonable Man. This may be due to the fact that it is not possible to specify exactly what ought to be done in all circumstances, and therefore it is phrased in terms of what a reasonable man would in the circumstances do. This standard is used to judge the conduct of an ordinary person only. Usually persons with greater than average skills, or with special duties to society, are held to a higher standard of care. For example, a physician who aids a person in distress is held to a higher standard of care than is an ordinary person. " Quote Quote "...great bodily harm ..." ('great' is ambiguous. Got something else?) What do you want - a specific list of injuries that a victim can check off in the course of getting their head pounded in? "Broken nose" - check. "Broken jaw" - check. "Broken neck" - fuck, can't move my arms anymore to check that one off. Let's not go off the deep end, Mike. Let's look at it. If you take out "great", you're left with "bodily harm" Sure, now WTF does THAT mean with respect to SYG. It means that ANY damage done or threatened is a viable excuse to apply SYG. I don't think we want to say that so we have to include some qualifier, eh?. So what does "great" mean" Yes, we could all agree that death would be great harm. What about that Broken nose, Broken jaw, Broken neck you mentioned. Where do you draw the line between what is great harm and what is not? I'm sure that OUR interpretation sitting at our keyboards is going to be different that the interpretation given by the guy that's "getting his head pounded in". Ahhhhh....interpretation, my friend. Interpretation. According to uslegal.com, it's defined as: "Serious bodily injury or harm is the serious physical harm caused to the human body. It usually refers to those injuries that create a substantial risk of death or that cause serious, permanent disfigurement or prolonged loss or impairment of the function of any body part or organ. The term “serious bodily injury” is interchangeably used with serious bodily harm; grievous bodily harm; great bodily injury." Seems reasonable to me.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
