George Zimmerman is a piece of crap

[Dugout DickStone]

How do I search this thread for where I predicted SYG would be in the jury instructions and a few noobs said it wouldn't?

[K-S-U-Wildcats!]

They are following the law no matter how they vote. The law allows for a jury system to interpret the law in any way they see fit.

No and no. They must follow the law as presented to them.

They must? What is the penalty if they don't?

For the most part nothing happens. It could result in an overturn on appeal, but that doesn't happen as much as some people would think.  when a jury doesn't follow the law and votes for other reasons it is called jury nullification.

Right, there's no penalty, but the verdict could be tossed if it ever came to light (extremely rare). Do you really want a justice system where jurors are allowed to vote on emotion and prejudice rather than applying the evidence to the law (including the requirement that the state prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt)? I'm sure it happens all the time, but it's not supposed to.

[Kat Kid]

They are following the law no matter how they vote. The law allows for a jury system to interpret the law in any way they see fit.

No and no. They must follow the law as presented to them.

They must? What is the penalty if they don't?

For the most part nothing happens. It could result in an overturn on appeal, but that doesn't happen as much as some people would think.  when a jury doesn't follow the law and votes for other reasons it is called jury nullification.

Right, there's no penalty, but the verdict could be tossed if it ever came to light (extremely rare). Do you really want a justice system where jurors are allowed to vote on emotion and prejudice rather than applying the evidence to the law (including the requirement that the state prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt)? I'm sure it happens all the time, but it's not supposed to.

You just described a jury.  Good grief.

[Rage Against the McKee]

They are following the law no matter how they vote. The law allows for a jury system to interpret the law in any way they see fit.

No and no. They must follow the law as presented to them.

They must? What is the penalty if they don't?

For the most part nothing happens. It could result in an overturn on appeal, but that doesn't happen as much as some people would think.  when a jury doesn't follow the law and votes for other reasons it is called jury nullification.

Right, there's no penalty, but the verdict could be tossed if it ever came to light (extremely rare). Do you really want a justice system where jurors are allowed to vote on emotion and prejudice rather than applying the evidence to the law (including the requirement that the state prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt)? I'm sure it happens all the time, but it's not supposed to.

You just described a jury.  Good grief.

Exactly. That system is the one that we have.

[_33]

I have an idea for a fun game.  If you believe the not guilty verdict was correct then try your hardest to convince everyone that it was.  If you believe it was not correct try your hardest to convince everyone of that.

[MakeItRain]

The thing that bothers me more than anything is that relatively little attention has been paid to the absolutely insane laws in place that protected George Zimmerman.

Stand your ground didn't play any roll in this trial.

 

[pissclams]

I have an idea for a fun game.  If you believe the not guilty verdict was correct then try your hardest to convince everyone that it was.  If you believe it was not correct try your hardest to convince everyone of that.

it's moved beyond that, now they're just calling each other "dumbasses"

[Emo EMAW]

If you get into an altercation and no witnesses saw who intsigated the fight, as long as you kill the other party, you're free to go.  That's the law.

I'm sure you know this, but it's been that way for a long time.  My mom tells a story about living in California in the 60's.  Sherrif tells her to keep shooting until they're dead, and if she ever shoots anyone outside her country home to drag the body inside. 

[MakeItRain]

I have an idea for a fun game.  If you believe the not guilty verdict was correct then try your hardest to convince everyone that it was.  If you believe it was not correct try your hardest to convince everyone of that.

Yes. I'm perplexed as to why we're still having legal conversations here, its over. I would like to know from the people who thought that Zimmerman should have been acquitted if they feel that he followed proper societal and moral rules.

[K-S-U-Wildcats!]

They are following the law no matter how they vote. The law allows for a jury system to interpret the law in any way they see fit.

No and no. They must follow the law as presented to them.

They must? What is the penalty if they don't?

For the most part nothing happens. It could result in an overturn on appeal, but that doesn't happen as much as some people would think.  when a jury doesn't follow the law and votes for other reasons it is called jury nullification.

Right, there's no penalty, but the verdict could be tossed if it ever came to light (extremely rare). Do you really want a justice system where jurors are allowed to vote on emotion and prejudice rather than applying the evidence to the law (including the requirement that the state prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt)? I'm sure it happens all the time, but it's not supposed to.

You just described a jury.  Good grief.

Exactly. That system is the one that we have.

Doesn't mean we should condone it.

[Cire]

If I were a juror I would ask "How on earth could somebody who scared a kid into running away chase him down with a gun and then claim self defense?" And then I would vote guilty.

And I would reply that GZ caught up to TM after TM had a 4 minute head start?

[Emo EMAW]

I have an idea for a fun game.  If you believe the not guilty verdict was correct then try your hardest to convince everyone that it was.  If you believe it was not correct try your hardest to convince everyone of that.

Yes. I'm perplexed as to why we're still having legal conversations here, its over. I would like to know from the people who thought that Zimmerman should have been acquitted if they feel that he followed proper societal and moral rules.

That's a much better question.  I'd have to say no.  Even if you assume that following him was okay, he should have maintained a safe distance.  Getting close enough to be confronted/struck was where I believe he "broke the rules." 

[Dugout DickStone]

I have an idea for a fun game.  If you believe the not guilty verdict was correct then try your hardest to convince everyone that it was.  If you believe it was not correct try your hardest to convince everyone of that.

Yes. I'm perplexed as to why we're still having legal conversations here, its over. I would like to know from the people who thought that Zimmerman should have been acquitted if they feel that he followed proper societal and moral rules.

I want the noobs to admit that SYG was submitted as an instruction and I was right.

It seems now that the gun nuts have figured out that the defense may have not needed the SYG law and so they are screaming that it wasn't involved so there isn't any scrutiny on it.

[michigancat]

33 seems to struggle with discussing controversial issues. It's ok to have an opinion and defend it, 33. We'll still like your videos.

[Daddy Claxton]

I have an idea for a fun game.  If you believe the not guilty verdict was correct then try your hardest to convince everyone that it was.  If you believe it was not correct try your hardest to convince everyone of that.

Yes. I'm perplexed as to why we're still having legal conversations here, its over. I would like to know from the people who thought that Zimmerman should have been acquitted if they feel that he followed proper societal and moral rules.

Did anyone say that GZ followed proper societal and moral rules? Seems that the clear consensus from everyone, except maybe a few that are always on the fringe, is that GZ is still a pos, even if not guilty of what he was charged of.

[K-S-U-Wildcats!]

I have an idea for a fun game.  If you believe the not guilty verdict was correct then try your hardest to convince everyone that it was.  If you believe it was not correct try your hardest to convince everyone of that.

Yes. I'm perplexed as to why we're still having legal conversations here, its over. I would like to know from the people who thought that Zimmerman should have been acquitted if they feel that he followed proper societal and moral rules.

Ok, no more legal conversations. That's just the fun nerdy stuff for me.

To your question, I'm not sure what you mean by "proper societal and moral rules." Let's assume that GZ wasn't just trying to keep an eye on Trayvon, but instead was actually trying to approach him. That was certainly a riskier choice than staying in his car, especially if you think he might be a burglar, but was it immoral?

Now let's assume GZ then blurted out "what are you doing here?" That's a little rude, if you ask me. Not as rude as a punch to the face (or deserving of it), but still rude. Would have been more polite to say something like "Hi, we've had some break-ins in the neighborhood recently and I don't recognize you. Would you mind telling me who you are?"

[Kat Kid]

I have an idea for a fun game.  If you believe the not guilty verdict was correct then try your hardest to convince everyone that it was.  If you believe it was not correct try your hardest to convince everyone of that.

Yes. I'm perplexed as to why we're still having legal conversations here, its over. I would like to know from the people who thought that Zimmerman should have been acquitted if they feel that he followed proper societal and moral rules.

I want the noobs to admit that SYG was submitted as an instruction and I was right.

It seems now that the gun nuts have figured out that the defense may have not needed the SYG law and so they are screaming that it wasn't involved so there isn't any scrutiny on it.

Looks like we have some competing claims here.  I wonder who will be proven right beyond a reasonable doubt.

The thing that bothers me more than anything is that relatively little attention has been paid to the absolutely insane laws in place that protected George Zimmerman.

The same laws are in place in Kansas and most other states. It was just a standard self-defense claim, and there's nothing really special about it.

You said that a lot, then someone pointed out that Stand Your Ground was mentioned in the jury instructions and you seemed surprised and now you seem to be claiming that it had no effect again.

That "someone" was me. The SYG portion was just a carryover from the standard jury instruction. I was surprised that the defense didn't try (maybe they did) to take that part out, since they never claimed SYG and it didn't fit with theri theory of the case.

Again, stand your ground had no application to this case. GZ claimed he couldn't retreat, and it is therefore irrelevant that he didn't have to retreat.

[Dugout DickStone]

I have an idea for a fun game.  If you believe the not guilty verdict was correct then try your hardest to convince everyone that it was.  If you believe it was not correct try your hardest to convince everyone of that.

Yes. I'm perplexed as to why we're still having legal conversations here, its over. I would like to know from the people who thought that Zimmerman should have been acquitted if they feel that he followed proper societal and moral rules.

I want the noobs to admit that SYG was submitted as an instruction and I was right.

It seems now that the gun nuts have figured out that the defense may have not needed the SYG law and so they are screaming that it wasn't involved so there isn't any scrutiny on it.

Looks like we have some competing claims here.  I wonder who will be proven right beyond a reasonable doubt.

The thing that bothers me more than anything is that relatively little attention has been paid to the absolutely insane laws in place that protected George Zimmerman.

The same laws are in place in Kansas and most other states. It was just a standard self-defense claim, and there's nothing really special about it.

You said that a lot, then someone pointed out that Stand Your Ground was mentioned in the jury instructions and you seemed surprised and now you seem to be claiming that it had no effect again.

That "someone" was me. The SYG portion was just a carryover from the standard jury instruction. I was surprised that the defense didn't try (maybe they did) to take that part out, since they never claimed SYG and it didn't fit with theri theory of the case.

Again, stand your ground had no application to this case. GZ claimed he couldn't retreat, and it is therefore irrelevant that he didn't have to retreat.

No one would ever contend that the judge and attorneys for both parties would allow an instruction that "plays no part in the case" to go to the jury.  I think he just misspoke.

[Rage Against the McKee]

If I were a juror I would ask "How on earth could somebody who scared a kid into running away chase him down with a gun and then claim self defense?" And then I would vote guilty.

And I would reply that GZ caught up to TM after TM had a 4 minute head start?

1. What makes you believe TM had a 4 minute head start? GZ was already outside and in pursuit when he was on the phone with 911. You can hear his heavy breathing and the wind blowing into the phone.

2. Obviously GZ did catch up to him or the kid wouldn't be dead.

[GCJayhawker]

Unlike TM this thread just won't die.  What? Too soon? Yeah you are right, I'll just show myself to the door. 

[john "teach me how to" dougie]

The thing that bothers me more than anything is that relatively little attention has been paid to the absolutely insane laws in place that protected George Zimmerman.

Stand your ground didn't play any roll in this trial.

 

It's hard to find a good proofreader for my blogs posts at a reasonable price these days. I'm looking into an illegal with an English degree.

[Rage Against the McKee]

The thing that bothers me more than anything is that relatively little attention has been paid to the absolutely insane laws in place that protected George Zimmerman.

Stand your ground didn't play any roll in this trial.

 

It's hard to find a good proofreader for my blogs posts at a reasonable price these days. I'm looking into an illegal with an English degree.

You wouldn't be able to afford him/her.

[john "teach me how to" dougie]

The thing that bothers me more than anything is that relatively little attention has been paid to the absolutely insane laws in place that protected George Zimmerman.

Stand your ground didn't play any roll in this trial.

 

It's hard to find a good proofreader for my blogs posts at a reasonable price these days. I'm looking into an illegal with an English degree.

You wouldn't be able to afford him/her.

She missed another. Gone.

[_33]

33 seems to struggle with discussing controversial issues. It's ok to have an opinion and defend it, 33. We'll still like your videos.

The phrase "agree to disagree" is very underutilized in our society.

[puniraptor]

33 seems to struggle with discussing controversial issues. It's ok to have an opinion and defend it, 33. We'll still like your videos.

The phrase "agree to disagree" is very underutilized in our society.

Solid counterpunch, 33! I think this argument is really about to get heated!