Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Community Forum' started by WildmanWilson, Jun 30, 2013.
Here you go guys lets do this :devilish: http://youtu.be/3iYVJCEGTsU
The atmosphere has been pretty dang chilly in my house since I called my wife an idiot for saying Zimmerman got away with murder. The comment aggravated me enough to mention she voted for Obama and the downhill slide continued for another 10 minutes. I just pointed out facts.....although GZ used poor decisions when getting out of his car, it wasn't illegal. It also wasn't murder when he was defending himself from a thug, it was self-defense. Although the house is not as chilly as it was last night, it ain't warm yet lol. Wife or not, I call it like it is.
Man you guys are lucky, this thing is ending just in time for the new scratch and sniff honey boo boo show........that will give ya something to talk about.
Hate that show....lol!! The kids love it, so I have to endure it from time to time.
As far as the Zimmerman thing goes, I am entering the conversation late, but this was a classic self-defense case. Zimmerman appears to have done nothing wrong, or illegal, leading up to the altercation. During the altercation martin had obviously became the aggressor, as evidenced by eyewitnesses and Zimmerman's injury. At the point of the shot martin was clearly in an offensive position and Zimmerman's head was obviously bouncing off the pavement at least 2 or 3 times, and its very likely that its Zimmerman yelling for help on the 911 tapes. I find it laughable that some are debating the severity of these injuries. It takes force to break the skin an leave knots on the back of the head and I don't think anyone would want to lay there and take it, especially if the threats Martin was said to be making of Zimmerman dying were truly being made. under florida law, Zimmerman didn't even have to show injury or even believe that he was about to die to shoot martin. If he believed he was going to suffer severe bodily injury, then he was justified. That has to be a reasonable assumption by Zimmerman in this case. This wasn't even a case of stand-your-ground law that everyone is crying about. Its pure self-defense. Its not stand your ground if you are lying flat of your back on the ground and getting pounded MMA style. Race-baitors will continue to try to spin this as some kind of racial profiling and racial injustice in an effort to continue their own legitimacy, but it was pure self-defense. The Zimmerman witch hunt is now on by the DOJ and the race peddlers...... forget the fact he was acquitted in a fair trial and after an 18 month FBI investigation no racial prejudice was found.
A lot of people on here (and in the general population as well) are confusing common sense with the law. While common sense says you don't go following around suspicious looking people in the dark because something bad is likely to happen, especially when the police tell you not to; there's nothing illegal about that. Where the law got broken is the second one of them laid hands on the other.
I think the list of people who would claim that GZ made smart decisions that night would be pretty small. Same goes for those claiming TM made good decisions. Neither one made good decisions that night, but making dumb decisions isn't against the law.
Numbers don't lie.
Never happened- the police asked GZ IF he could get to where he could see where TM was so he exited his vehicle and did - later operator asked him if he was following TM - he said yes- operator advised "we don't need you to do that" - GZ "OK" it's all on tape nothing to doubt -
"The Police" didn't tell him anything - a Civilian operator made suggestions- they can't tell you to do or not do anything as the operator testified in court. I'm not sure where the media lies came from but anyone who watched the trial heard the calls and knows it's total BS .
This quote tells a lot about what might be the start of the problem.
Today, 73 percent of all black kids are born out of wedlock. Growing up, these kids drop out, use drugs, are unemployed, commit crimes and are incarcerated at many times the rate of Asians and whites — or Hispanics, who are taking the jobs that used to go to young black Americans.
I'm going to make this post, but I'm confident that you won't understand it.
Here's your statute. . . .
Now, suppose they interviewed all of the jurors and each of them said that they didn't really think that George Zimmerman shot Martin in self-defense. In fact, they were 90% sure he was guilty of manslaughter or murder, but that there was enough reasonable evidence (10%) that the shooting was justified (i.e. in self-defense) to raise a doubt in their minds. Not much, mind you, just enough evidence to create a reasonable doubt that resulted in a not guilty verdict.
In your statute above, what is the standard for receiving immunity? Is it that it led to an acquittal (i.e. raised a reasonable doubt in a criminal conviction)? Is it the preponderance of the evidence (i.e. more than 50%)? The statute is poorly drafted, because it doesn't consider these legal nuances.
Has the fact that Zimmerman been acquitted necessarily mean that he's completely immunized from civil liability, because it automatically means that he proved self-defense by a preponderance of the evidence?
You can't answer these questions without knowing the jury instructions, and I've read the jury instructions. And if you look at those instructions, you'll see that the jury was instructed to acquit Zimmerman if the evidence related to his self-defense created doubts in their mind regarding whether the shooting was justified or excused.
BTW, I wouldn't take the case, because I believe, like you, that it was self-defense, and I think my client would end up with an adverse ruling and being responsible for the opposing side's attorneys' fees, but I'll bet $100 right now that a civil suit will be brought before it's all said and done, and I'll bet another $100 that the judge won't dismiss the case based on a finding that Zimmerman was fully "immunized" under this statute by virtue of a simple acquittal in a criminal case.
Either way, my point remains--not a wise decision. But not illegal either.
I won't take your bet BF - I still doubt a civil suit happens and certainly won't go to trial IMO
Grrrrrrr.. . . . . .
That could be a risky bet knowing this regime...lol!! I think you are right about the law, but the law doesn't matter to these people. Its all political now and being driven by political pressure and personal prejudices. By fanning the race flames this administration is able to play to their voting base and left wing agendas such as gun control. Remember this is the same regime that blamed Benghazi on a stupid online video and has locked up the man that made that video. nothing would surprise me that these people do. They are totally lawless.
B- I DO understand what you're saying - you should research the one juror who came out publicly on why the jury ruled as they did (Self Defense ) she was on Anderson Cooper 360
SO there is NO mistake I am in 100% agreement:!