George Zimmerman is a piece of crap

[420seriouscat69]

I'm not sure why this try is taking so long.  After all they have video of he entire event.

OMG

[EllRobersonisInnocent]

That's a solid gif 

[sys]

I speak for nearly all of gE when I say we won't be.

heh, yeah.

[kim carnes]

I mean it's interesting, but there's probably a lot of cases out there like this that don't get noticed. It has outed a lot of racists/conservatives and leftwing liberals.

 

If you can't see that, you're blind. My family is conservative and most are dumbass racist (the older crowd). I think personal political views affect a lot of people's opinions on this. My dad hates Jamie Fox cause he heard on Fox News that he wore TM shirt.

u dumb

[420seriouscat69]

Or you're naive.

[michigancat]

even if martin was alive, it would be he said/he said.

but wouldn't Martin be on trial, as well? I really don't know how that would work.

[Ms. WackySquawk]

even if martin was alive, it would be he said/he said.

but wouldn't Martin be on trial, as well? I really don't know how that would work.

Great question? Whoops.... wrong account.

[Trim]

even if martin was alive, it would be he said/he said.

but wouldn't Martin be on trial, as well? I really don't know how that would work.

If Martin had been shot, but lived?

I wonder if he'd even have been charged.  Even with Zimmerman being the lone party who can talk, the investigation still led to Zim being charged with 2nd degree murder and the state upholding Martin as the victim.  Seems that anything Martin would say would just push what's happening now further in the way of Zim being the charged criminal and Martin being the victim.  Maybe the state would've felt better about charging Zim with the assault for the pre-confrontation act?

[EMAWmeister]

I mean it's interesting, but there's probably a lot of cases out there like this that don't get noticed. It has outed a lot of racists/conservatives and leftwing liberals.

 

If you can't see that, you're blind. My family is conservative and most are dumbass racist (the older crowd). I think personal political views affect a lot of people's opinions on this. My dad hates Jamie Fox cause he heard on Fox News that he wore TM shirt.

I because you seem to think that 'racist' and 'leftwing' are similar qualifiers.

And no crap political views have an effect on this. It's a gun control issue.

[sys]

even if martin was alive, it would be he said/he said.

but wouldn't Martin be on trial, as well? I really don't know how that would work.

trim would know, but can both parties of a double self-defense fight be charged?  doesn't the state have to choose one to believe?  they couldn't logically argue that they didn't believe either party had a reasonable claim to self defense if they were charging both with some crime of aggression.

[Trim]

even if martin was alive, it would be he said/he said.

but wouldn't Martin be on trial, as well? I really don't know how that would work.

trim would know, but can both parties of a double self-defense fight be charged?  doesn't the state have to choose one to believe?  they couldn't logically argue that they didn't believe either party had a reasonable claim to self defense if they were charging both with some crime of aggression.

It could be attempted, but probably impractical, as the respective victims probably won't be good/cooperative witnesses for the same office that's charging them.  And both defendants would be using the contradictory evidence/arguments from the opposite case against the state.

[MakeItRain]

Not too high, too hard..
Who gives a crap its outta here

 

[felix rex]

It's kind of messed up that the legal system doesn't require the jury to know "beyond reasonable doubt" that TM attacked GZ. The defense just has to show that it could have happened.

I mean, I get it, but it's messed up.

Agreed. I understand and support the trade off we made, but I don't always enjoy seeing the results. Dude killed a kid. Whether its stand your ground, concealed carry, whatever, there's a glitch in the system. For me, it's mostly about a kid getting killed and less about GZ walking, though.

yeah

Do you two think deadly force in self defense should always require jail time?  Maybe I'm misreading, but it seems like you're saying a killed b, and no matter the circumstances a deserves jail for killing someone.

This is quite possibly the most opposite of what I was saying. I don't really care about the verdict part. In fact, I'd probably lean toward no/minimal prison time for the same reasons as sys. My point is that the system has a problem when this is a potential result of an over eager neighborhood patrol. Whether that problem is judicial or social or whatever, I don't really know. But Martin died because GZ unnecessarily picked a fight and unnecessarily had a gun.

[steve dave]

It's kind of messed up that the legal system doesn't require the jury to know "beyond reasonable doubt" that TM attacked GZ. The defense just has to show that it could have happened.

I mean, I get it, but it's messed up.

Agreed. I understand and support the trade off we made, but I don't always enjoy seeing the results. Dude killed a kid. Whether its stand your ground, concealed carry, whatever, there's a glitch in the system. For me, it's mostly about a kid getting killed and less about GZ walking, though.

yeah

Do you two think deadly force in self defense should always require jail time?  Maybe I'm misreading, but it seems like you're saying a killed b, and no matter the circumstances a deserves jail for killing someone.

This is quite possibly the most opposite of what I was saying. I don't really care about the verdict part. In fact, I'd probably lean toward no/minimal prison time for the same reasons as sys. My point is that the system has a problem when this is a potential result of an over eager neighborhood patrol. Whether that problem is judicial or social or whatever, I don't really know. But Martin died because GZ unnecessarily picked a fight and unnecessarily had a gun.

yes, well typed.

[star seed 7]

It's kind of messed up that the legal system doesn't require the jury to know "beyond reasonable doubt" that TM attacked GZ. The defense just has to show that it could have happened.

I mean, I get it, but it's messed up.

Agreed. I understand and support the trade off we made, but I don't always enjoy seeing the results. Dude killed a kid. Whether its stand your ground, concealed carry, whatever, there's a glitch in the system. For me, it's mostly about a kid getting killed and less about GZ walking, though.

yeah

Do you two think deadly force in self defense should always require jail time?  Maybe I'm misreading, but it seems like you're saying a killed b, and no matter the circumstances a deserves jail for killing someone.

This is quite possibly the most opposite of what I was saying. I don't really care about the verdict part. In fact, I'd probably lean toward no/minimal prison time for the same reasons as sys. My point is that the system has a problem when this is a potential result of an over eager neighborhood patrol. Whether that problem is judicial or social or whatever, I don't really know. But Martin died because GZ unnecessarily picked a fight and unnecessarily had a gun.

Well I'm glad I asked.

[K-S-U-Wildcats!]

Here's the key jury instruction that the jury will receive later today...

An issue in this case is whether George Zimmerman acted in self-defense. It is a defense to the crime of Second Degree Murder, and the lesser included offense of Manslaughter, if the death of Trayvon Martin resulted from the justifiable use of deadly force.

“Deadly force” means force likely to cause death or great bodily harm.

A person is justified in using deadly force if he reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself.

In deciding whether George Zimmerman was justified in the use of deadly force, you must judge him by the circumstances by which he was surrounded at the time the force was used. The danger facing George Zimmerman need not have been actual; however, to justify the use of deadly force, the appearance of danger must have been so real that a reasonably cautious and prudent person under the same circumstances would have believed that the danger could be avoided only through the use of that force. Based upon appearances, George Zimmerman must have actually believed that the danger was real.

If George Zimmerman was not engaged in an unlawful activity and was attacked in any place where he had a right to be, he had no duty to retreat and had the right to stand his ground and meet force with force, including deadly force if he reasonably believed that it was necessary to do so to prevent death or great bodily harm to himself or another or to prevent the commission of a forcible felony.

In considering the issue of self-defense, you may take into account the relative physical abilities and capacities of George Zimmerman and Trayvon Martin.

If in your consideration of the issue of self-defense you have a reasonable doubt on the question of whether George Zimmerman was justified in the use of deadly force, you should find George Zimmerman not guilty.

However, if from the evidence you are convinced beyond a reasonable doubt that George Zimmerman was not justified in the use of deadly force, you should find him guilty if all the elements of the charge have been proved.

Seems like a generally fair instruction. I am a bit confused as to why the SYG provision made it into the instruction. Must be a carryover from the standard instruction, but it seems to muddle the issue here.

[steve dave]

oh look, it's ksuwildcats saying syg is not a factor in this case

[pissclams]

seems to me like like ksu wildcats is the next sotomayer

[K-S-U-Wildcats!]

oh look, it's ksuwildcats saying syg is not a factor in this case

It isn't, which is why the instruction is potentially confusing. GZ waived his pre-trial SYG hearing, and it is not the defense's theory of the case that GZ had an opportunity to retreat.

[steve dave]

oh look, it's ksuwildcats saying syg is not a factor in this case

[K-S-U-Wildcats!]

oh look, it's ksuwildcats saying syg is not a factor in this case

Is there an echo in here?

[Tobias]

oh look, it's ksuwildcats saying syg is not a factor in this case

[Trim]

I am a bit confused as to why the SYG provision made it into the instruction.

[EllRobersonisInnocent]

 

Pic of a dead Trayvon on Gawker. Won't post it here

[Trim]

Zim's attorney is killing it.

Poor choice of words?