If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(ACLU)   Dear Eric Holder; Your attempts at a federal case against George Zimmerman violates the double-jeopardy clause in the constitution and we will defend him if necessary. Sincerely - The ACLU   (aclu.org) divider line 548
    More: Interesting  
•       •       •

15993 clicks; posted to Main » on 21 Jul 2013 at 12:34 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



548 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-07-21 04:41:11 PM  
Zimmerman's life will never be the same. He has to ALWAYS look over his shoulder. He needs to change his name and get plastic surgery. The line to kill him is very long and it's a line packed with patient people.
 
2013-07-21 04:42:06 PM  

Abuse Liability: brantgoose: Dear ACLU,

He's not being charged for the same crime. He was charged with manslaughter, now he is likely to be charged with violating the civil rights of the deceased on the pretext of his race, age and sex. And you didn't put your answer in the form of a question. NO DOUBLE JEOPARDY FOR YOU.

Love, Brantgoose

Know how we all know you know nothing about this case.
/We know.
//know know know


Please explain why you feel his argument, which correctly stated Zimmerman was charged with manslaughter in its assertion of historical fact, and which relies on an accurate if simplified understanding of a doctrine of constitutional law governing successive prosecutions, reveals he knows "nothing about this case."
 
2013-07-21 04:42:38 PM  

coyo: Zimmerman was acting foolishly and caused someone's death.


Zimmerman was reporting a suspicious person to the police and attempting to provide that persons location. What a moron, right?
 
2013-07-21 04:44:11 PM  

Popcorn Johnny: coyo: Zimmerman was acting foolishly and caused someone's death.

Zimmerman was reporting a suspicious person to the police and attempting to provide that persons location. What a moron, right?


And following him around against Sanford PD's own NW protocol, of which Zimmerman was personally aware.
 
2013-07-21 04:44:22 PM  

RexTalionis: We are writing to clearly state the ACLU's position on whether or not the Department of Justice (DOJ) should consider bringing federal civil rights or hate crimes charges as a result of the state court acquittal in the George Zimmerman case. Even though the Supreme Court permits a federal prosecution following a state prosecution, the ACLU believes the Double Jeopardy Clause of the Constitution protects someone from being prosecuted in another court for charges arising from the same transaction.


In other words: "Even though the Supreme Court said we're wrong, we're choosing to believe in our interpretation of the Constitution."


It works for extrajudicial executions and universal surveillance, so why not?

Democracy's been dead here for a while, rule of law is following.
 
2013-07-21 04:46:12 PM  

xanadian: Well, DUH.  The whole story is tragic, but George was acquitted.  Let it go man, coz it's GONE.


If everyone let it go then the race pimps like Jackson, Sharpton and all of their wannabes wouldn't be able to make a living.
 
2013-07-21 04:48:56 PM  

Popcorn Johnny: tirob: Precedent says you're right.  Look up Viola Liuzzo.

Are you being serious right now?


Yes.  Look up Viola Liuzzo.  I linked the Wiki article on her further up the page.
 
2013-07-21 04:49:11 PM  

Popcorn Johnny: coyo: Zimmerman was acting foolishly and caused someone's death.

Zimmerman was reporting a suspicious person to the police and attempting to provide that persons location. What a moron, right?


What did the police tell him, and what was suspicious that he had seen?
 
2013-07-21 04:49:46 PM  

youncasqua: Abuse Liability: brantgoose: Dear ACLU,

He's not being charged for the same crime. He was charged with manslaughter, now he is likely to be charged with violating the civil rights of the deceased on the pretext of his race, age and sex. And you didn't put your answer in the form of a question. NO DOUBLE JEOPARDY FOR YOU.

Love, Brantgoose

Know how we all know you know nothing about this case.
/We know.
//know know know

Please explain why you feel his argument, which correctly stated Zimmerman was charged with manslaughter in its assertion of historical fact, and which relies on an accurate if simplified understanding of a doctrine of constitutional law governing successive prosecutions, reveals he knows "nothing about this case."


No
 
2013-07-21 04:50:23 PM  

youncasqua: And following him around against Sanford PD's own NW protocol, of which Zimmerman was personally aware.


Zim wasn't out patrolling as a NW, he was on his way to the store. Even if he was, he did noting in violation of any law when he exited his vehicle in an attempt to remain in sight of Trayvon after the Skittles kid took off running.
 
2013-07-21 04:50:26 PM  

Popcorn Johnny: Oh boy, here we go. Please enlighten us as to what stand your ground had to do with the case.


Travon Martin stood his ground against a guy who was stalking and intimidating him, however this defence was rejected and he was sentenced to execution by lethal shooting.
 
2013-07-21 04:50:40 PM  

RexTalionis: In other words: "Even though the Supreme Court said we're wrong, we're choosing to believe in our interpretation of the Constitution."


Actually, there is some reason to  believe the ACLU is more correct on that than the current "dual-sovereign" doctrine.

Apparently, that doctrine wasn't part of English common law, nor was it understood to be permissible by early American courts, but was pretty much made up out of whole cloth in 1852 by the infamous Taney court (you know, the same one that gave us Dred Scott).

That link is to a cert petition asking the Supreme Court to overturn the 'dual sovereign' doctrine, under the idea that originalism trumps stare decisis, when the two are at odds with each other.
 
2013-07-21 04:50:54 PM  

OgreMagi: The Lone Gunman: cman: Gotta give it to the ACLU

They are principled people who put their personal opinions below what is right

Seriously, the trial is over.  And I'm sure that there will be a civil trial, but the DOJ needs to step away from this.

Besides, jailing Zimmerman at this point will accomplish nothing.  If they really want justice for Trayvon, they need to get rid of "Stand Your Ground", because cops have a tough enough time without prospective serial killers posing as "protectors of the community".

Stand Your Ground had nothing to do with the case.  The defense didn't even bring it up in the trial.


The judge included it in her charge to the jury.
 
2013-07-21 04:50:54 PM  

Popcorn Johnny: Skyrmion: She said Trayvon threw the first punch?

Yes, she said that she believes Trayvon threw the first punch.


And four other jurors have distanced themselves from her statements.

But it's irrelevant anyway, because the jury wasn't asked to issue a special verdict on the question of whether or not Trayvon threw the first punch. Zimmerman's neither proves Zimmernan's actual innocence, nor proves Trayvon's guilt. And when you objectively evaluate the evidence, there is less reason to believe Trayvon threw the first punch than that Zimmerman did.

A rational person may believe the state failed to prove Zimmerman guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. No rational person may simultaneously acquit Zimmerman, and convict Trayvon.
 
2013-07-21 04:51:54 PM  

tirob: Yes.  Look up Viola Liuzzo.  I linked the Wiki article on her further up the page.


Yes, I refreshed my memory by reading the Wiki. You can't possibly be comparing that case to this one.
 
2013-07-21 04:52:02 PM  

hardinparamedic: Why do people keep pulling things from their ass about Marissa Alexander. That was never a stand your ground case, either. It was a clear cut case of attempted murder based on the evidence and Alexander's own statements.


First, yes, there was a stand-your-ground hearing; immunity for her was denied. And, yes, I completely agree about your assessment of the case, but therein lies my point about stand-your-ground laws in general, and in particular Florida's, and the inconsistency with its application: which is the problematic nature of imposing no duty no retreat, and unfettered right to use force up to and including but not necessarily lethal force, if  at any time during an altercation a defendant reasonably fears for their life, largely regardless of context.

That's the point: it's too broad, and inconsistencies in its application even before you consider racial issues shows it. As those articles I mentioned listed, repeat violent offenders have been acquitted under stand-your-ground. People who blatantly  started altercations but lost the upper hand have been acuitted under it. I mean, the chick who claimed to be a vampire was denied immunity under stand-your-ground, but then again she claimed to be a vampire (and she tried to claim an elderly paraplegic was trying to rape her).
 
2013-07-21 04:52:48 PM  

youncasqua: And four other jurors have distanced themselves from her statements.


They've distanced themselves from a statement Trayvon's friend made in an interview after the trial?
 
2013-07-21 04:53:38 PM  

AcneVulgaris: Democracy's been dead here for a while, rule of law is following.


Oh, rule of law will still continue.  They had the rule of law in the old Soviet Union, and in Maoist China, and in Nazi Germany.  They just re-write and re-interpret the laws, but they are still living under the rule of law.

"Rule of law", in and of itself, isn't necessarily a positive thing.  At best, it's neutral.
 
2013-07-21 04:53:48 PM  

youncasqua: And when you objectively evaluate the evidence, there is less reason to believe Trayvon threw the first punch than that Zimmerman did.


Sure there is, if you're ignorant of the facts.
 
2013-07-21 04:54:22 PM  

youncasqua: Popcorn Johnny: Skyrmion: She said Trayvon threw the first punch?

Yes, she said that she believes Trayvon threw the first punch.

And four other jurors have distanced themselves from her statements.

But it's irrelevant anyway, because the jury wasn't asked to issue a special verdict on the question of whether or not Trayvon threw the first punch. Zimmerman's neither proves Zimmernan's actual innocence, nor proves Trayvon's guilt. And when you objectively evaluate the evidence, there is less reason to believe Trayvon threw the first punch than that Zimmerman did.
.

There was no evidence on this point at trial.
 
2013-07-21 04:56:19 PM  

that bosnian sniper: That's the point: it's too broad, and inconsistencies in its application even before you consider racial issues shows it. As those articles I mentioned listed, repeat violent offenders have been acquitted under stand-your-ground. People who blatantly  started altercations but lost the upper hand have been acuitted under it. I mean, the chick who claimed to be a vampire was denied immunity under stand-your-ground, but then again she claimed to be a vampire (and she tried to claim an elderly paraplegic was trying to rape her).


I think I see what you're saying now.
 
2013-07-21 04:56:52 PM  
That the ACLU is willing to defend him proves Zimmerman isn't white.
 
2013-07-21 05:00:15 PM  

tirob: The judge included it in her charge to the jury.


Because it was part of the standard jury instructions for self-defense cases.
 
2013-07-21 05:01:32 PM  

RexTalionis: We are writing to clearly state the ACLU's position on whether or not the Department of Justice (DOJ) should consider bringing federal civil rights or hate crimes charges as a result of the state court acquittal in the George Zimmerman case. Even though the Supreme Court permits a federal prosecution following a state prosecution, the ACLU believes the Double Jeopardy Clause of the Constitution protects someone from being prosecuted in another court for charges arising from the same transaction.


In other words: "Even though the Supreme Court said we're wrong, we're choosing to believe in our interpretation of the Constitution."


True but not necessarily correct. SCOTUS are made up of human beings either. The ACLU's interpretation of the Constitution can just be as valid as SCOTUS's.
Case in point.... how many times have we seen even the individual justices have disagreed amongst themselves on their interpretation of the constitution!
 
2013-07-21 05:03:01 PM  

tirob: Skyrmion: One of the interesting aspects of this story is that this is pretty much a complete 180 from what the ACLU said just a few days ago, when they were encouraging the Dept. of Justice to investigate Zimmerman. I'd love to know what kind of conversations took place behind the scenes at the ACLU.

My guess:  A lawyer experienced in such matters advised the ACLU leadership that a federal civil rights case against Zimmerman would be a losing proposition (and based on the absence of evidence that Zimmerman shot Martin because he was black, it would be).  Since it would have looked bad for the ACLU to admit that it was mistaken on this point, it had to find some other way to come out against a civil-rights based prosecution of Zimmerman.


I don't know, I doubt it's that arbitrary. As I posted upthread, the ACLU has a history of standing against this kind of double-jeopardy and maintained it vocally even through the Rodney King trials. I'm sure the ACLU was internally divided.
 
2013-07-21 05:03:54 PM  

that bosnian sniper: People who blatantly  started altercations but lost the upper hand have been acuitted under it.


That can happen under standard self-defense laws.  In fact, if you start an altercation, that doesn't mean you give up your right to defend yourself.  You are limited, though, in that you must retreat if you possibly can, but George Zimmerman, according to his testimony and that of eyewitnesses, couldn't retreat.

Even if you believe Zimmerman started the fight, and even if you tried him under state laws where you have a duty to retreat, he still would have been acquitted.
 
2013-07-21 05:04:55 PM  

Popcorn Johnny: tirob: Yes.  Look up Viola Liuzzo.  I linked the Wiki article on her further up the page.

Yes, I refreshed my memory by reading the Wiki. You can't possibly be comparing that case to this one.


The facts of the two cases are completely different.  The precedent of a federal prosecution for civil rights violations (prospective in Zimmerman's case) after a state court acquittal on murder charges is the same.
 
2013-07-21 05:05:25 PM  

SuperNinjaToad: RexTalionis: We are writing to clearly state the ACLU's position on whether or not the Department of Justice (DOJ) should consider bringing federal civil rights or hate crimes charges as a result of the state court acquittal in the George Zimmerman case. Even though the Supreme Court permits a federal prosecution following a state prosecution, the ACLU believes the Double Jeopardy Clause of the Constitution protects someone from being prosecuted in another court for charges arising from the same transaction.


In other words: "Even though the Supreme Court said we're wrong, we're choosing to believe in our interpretation of the Constitution."

True but not necessarily correct. SCOTUS are made up of human beings either. The ACLU's interpretation of the Constitution can just be as valid as SCOTUS's.
Case in point.... how many times have we seen even the individual justices have disagreed amongst themselves on their interpretation of the constitution!


Wait... so you mean people have to get before them and argue their point? They must convince others that their interpretation is the correct one? People should do this for a living.
 
2013-07-21 05:06:06 PM  

coyo: This has echos of bernard Goetz, but even Goetz wasn't looking for trouble.


Don't forget that Bernie Goetz was acquitted of all charges except unregistered possession of a handgun.
 
2013-07-21 05:08:00 PM  

ReverendJynxed: SuperNinjaToad: RexTalionis: We are writing to clearly state the ACLU's position on whether or not the Department of Justice (DOJ) should consider bringing federal civil rights or hate crimes charges as a result of the state court acquittal in the George Zimmerman case. Even though the Supreme Court permits a federal prosecution following a state prosecution, the ACLU believes the Double Jeopardy Clause of the Constitution protects someone from being prosecuted in another court for charges arising from the same transaction.


In other words: "Even though the Supreme Court said we're wrong, we're choosing to believe in our interpretation of the Constitution."

True but not necessarily correct. SCOTUS are made up of human beings either. The ACLU's interpretation of the Constitution can just be as valid as SCOTUS's.
Case in point.... how many times have we seen even the individual justices have disagreed amongst themselves on their interpretation of the constitution!

Wait... so you mean people have to get before them and argue their point? They must convince others that their interpretation is the correct one? People should do this for a living.


No wai! We should settle this via social media. Like for guilty, comment for guilty. And share with your friends!
 
2013-07-21 05:09:30 PM  

that bosnian sniper: Oh_Enough_Already: Maybe it's a Florida thing when 15-year-old white girls  from there are the only folks standing up to the black thugs Trayvons infesting and terrorizing downtown Chicago.

Of course, funny enough, the article also mentions the cops were called, who actually arrested people and found  other stolen phones in the process. And, best of all,  nobody got farking shot to death. Amazing how that works, right?

And, indeed, it must be a Florida thing when attractive and successful defendants keep getting denied stand-your-ground protection and convicted  anyways, even when castle doctrine  also applies. Where's the outrage from the Bootstrapply Second Amendment Solutions club when it's black men and women defending themselves as is their legal right under Florida state law?


Here is your outrage

http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/2013/07/tim-mcnabb/black-man-shoots- w hite-teen-jury-says-self-defense-and-nobody-cares/
 
2013-07-21 05:09:31 PM  

dittybopper: tirob: The judge included it in her charge to the jury.

Because it was part of the standard jury instructions for self-defense cases.


Is there any record of whether the prosecution moved to have this part of the charge struck because they believed it to be inapplicable to the case?    ;-)
 
2013-07-21 05:10:23 PM  

Popcorn Johnny: youncasqua: And following him around against Sanford PD's own NW protocol, of which Zimmerman was personally aware.

Zim wasn't out patrolling as a NW, he was on his way to the store.


Oh, well that makes the choice to follow Trayvon around a responsible one! Because when you're not on patrol, it makes more sense to follow people around than when you are.

Terrific argument.

GZ declined an opportunity to join a citizens patrol group. To my knowledge he never officially patrolled. But the point of NW is that everyone monitors the neighborhood all the time.

Even if he was, he did noting in violation of any law when he exited his vehicle in an attempt to remain in sight of Trayvon after the Skittles kid took off running.

Wait a second. Zimmerman said he didn't run, but that he merrily skipped away, evincing no fear of Zimmerman whatsoever.

Oh wait. That's his amended version of events, not what he said on the phone. I'm sorry, it's hard for me to keep up.

The fallacy in your argument is that it accords Zimmerman's words probative value, of which they have none. We've no credible reason to believe Zimmerman followed Trayvon to keep him in sight. The credible evidence shows Zimmerman followed Trayvon with an aggressive purpose.

And anyway, it's less than clear he wasn't committing a crime. Florida statute specifically defines stalking as two incidents of following a person with malicious purpose. It further defines "course of conduct" as:

"a pattern of conduct composed of a series of acts over a period of time, however short, which evidences a continuity of purpose."

We may permissibly infer Zimmerman's malicious purpose from his apparent assumption of Trayvon's criminality, his use of epithets to describe him, and his chambering of a round in his gun while on the phone with police.

By analogy to the statute's "course of conduct" definition, we may argue that two instances of "following" a person may happen over any period time, "however short," and which evinces continuity of purpose.

Here, Zimmerman lost track of Trayvon, and started following him again more than once. Hence, Zimmerman was criminally stalking Trayvon within the meaning of Florida law.

I'm sorry, you don't just get to decide someone is a criminal, and follow him around with a loaded gun. It is reckless, aggressive, and often criminal.
 
2013-07-21 05:15:46 PM  

Popcorn Johnny: coyo: Zimmerman was acting foolishly and caused someone's death.

Zimmerman was reporting a suspicious person black teenager in a hoodieto the police and attempting to provide that persons location. What a moron, right?



Are you seriously trying to suggest that Zimmerman knew what he was doing when he profiled Martin as a criminal threat?   You do understand that is this the heart of the matter, right?  That black parents all over country are terrified that their teenage son could be the next Trayvon Martin?

Whatever else might be said about George Zimmerman, there is no debating that he was acting like a moron that night.
 
2013-07-21 05:15:50 PM  

Mistymtnhop: RandomAxe: Popcorn Johnny: What % of teens are perusing the illegal purchase of a firearm?

If I understand your use of "perusing", I'd say probably somewhere near 50%, at some point during their teen years. That was probably about right back when I was a teen, too.

I'm sorry, I never saw where Martin was charged and convicted of trying to attain a firearm. And I've been following the case pretty closely. This is news to me. Is there a police report?


The evidence obtain from Martin's cell phone included a text message exchange involving the illegal sell of a firearm.  He was not charged because he was dead.  If you want to read it for yourself, just search for transcripts of the trail.  Or you might get lucky if you search on something more specific.  But if you had actually been following the case closely, you would already know this.  I suspect that your definition of "following the case closely" is limited to swallowing whole the filtered information provided by the main stream media.
 
2013-07-21 05:16:06 PM  

Popcorn Johnny: youncasqua: And four other jurors have distanced themselves from her statements.

They've distanced themselves from a statement Trayvon's friend made in an interview after the trial?


Pardon me. I thought you referred to the publicity seeking juror's statements. But if you're referring to Jeantel's statements, they have roughly the same probative value as Zimmerman's. They should be treated similarly, which means accorded no weight.
 
2013-07-21 05:18:18 PM  

tirob: The facts of the two cases are completely different.  The precedent of a federal prosecution for civil rights violations (prospective in Zimmerman's case) after a state court acquittal on murder charges is the same.


It's nowhere close to the same. Those juries and trials were obviously tainted by racism, there's no evidence of that in the Zim proceedings and verdict.
 
2013-07-21 05:19:20 PM  

Government Fromage: ReverendJynxed: SuperNinjaToad: RexTalionis: We are writing to clearly state the ACLU's position on whether or not the Department of Justice (DOJ) should consider bringing federal civil rights or hate crimes charges as a result of the state court acquittal in the George Zimmerman case. Even though the Supreme Court permits a federal prosecution following a state prosecution, the ACLU believes the Double Jeopardy Clause of the Constitution protects someone from being prosecuted in another court for charges arising from the same transaction.


In other words: "Even though the Supreme Court said we're wrong, we're choosing to believe in our interpretation of the Constitution."

True but not necessarily correct. SCOTUS are made up of human beings either. The ACLU's interpretation of the Constitution can just be as valid as SCOTUS's.
Case in point.... how many times have we seen even the individual justices have disagreed amongst themselves on their interpretation of the constitution!

Wait... so you mean people have to get before them and argue their point? They must convince others that their interpretation is the correct one? People should do this for a living.

No wai! We should settle this via social media. Like for guilty, comment for guilty. And share with your friends!


i.imgur.com
 
2013-07-21 05:19:38 PM  

coyo: The Numbers: coyo: Popcorn Johnny: coyo: Obama was a fool for thinking his opponents had any shred of human decency or honor, that's for sure.

Obama's supporters were a fool for thinking he was different from any other politician.

What evidence do you have that they thought that? It's an interesting myth you buy in to, that he was 'worshipped'.

Pretty much every serious politician ever has had their 'worshippers' - those that believe they can do no wrong and will twist reality to maintain that view. It's pretty standard human behavior. Why would Obama be different? Methinks you're a touch too sensitive on this issue.

/He's not the messiah, he's a very naughty boy.

The only people I've ever heard refer to him as 'the messiah' are Republicans.


People in cults are always the least likely to refer to themselves as being part of a cult. Doesn't mean they aren't.in a cult. Same applies here.

As for being 'naughty', and a 'boy', he's the most adult politician in the room.

Did you not get the reference?
 
2013-07-21 05:20:26 PM  

Skyrmion: tirob: Skyrmion: One of the interesting aspects of this story is that this is pretty much a complete 180 from what the ACLU said just a few days ago, when they were encouraging the Dept. of Justice to investigate Zimmerman. I'd love to know what kind of conversations took place behind the scenes at the ACLU.

My guess:  A lawyer experienced in such matters advised the ACLU leadership that a federal civil rights case against Zimmerman would be a losing proposition (and based on the absence of evidence that Zimmerman shot Martin because he was black, it would be).  Since it would have looked bad for the ACLU to admit that it was mistaken on this point, it had to find some other way to come out against a civil-rights based prosecution of Zimmerman.

I don't know, I doubt it's that arbitrary. As I posted upthread, the ACLU has a history of standing against this kind of double-jeopardy and maintained it vocally even through the Rodney King trials. I'm sure the ACLU was internally divided.


I did qualify what I said as conjecture.  My main point was that I don't buy the idea that a civil rights prosecution of Zimmerman would be a Fifth Amendment violation, at least based on the precedent that I know of, and of which the ACLU is certainly aware.  However, even a summer law intern with one year of law school under his belt would have enough sense to know that a civil rights prosecution of Zimmerman would crash and burn on the merits.
 
2013-07-21 05:21:04 PM  
Funny to see all the Black Racist / White Guilt Liberal assplosion over the ACLU siding with Zimmerman

Even the ACLU sees the stupidity of White Guilt Liberals over this case

Fact is....Trayvon Martin racially and sexually profiled Zimmerman before he assaulted him. Martin got capped in self defense
 
2013-07-21 05:22:37 PM  

Autistic Hiker: Are you seriously trying to suggest that Zimmerman knew what he was doing when he profiled Martin as a criminal threat?   You do understand that is this the heart of the matter, right?  That black parents all over country are terrified that their teenage son could be the next Trayvon Martin?


Are you seriously trying to suggest that if a non-black sees a black acting suspiciously and reports it to police, they're being racist? Race has nothing to do with this case and you and the rest of the racists out there need to get your head out of the stand and try to understand that.
 
2013-07-21 05:22:56 PM  

coyo: OgreMagi: The Lone Gunman: cman: Gotta give it to the ACLU

They are principled people who put their personal opinions below what is right

Seriously, the trial is over.  And I'm sure that there will be a civil trial, but the DOJ needs to step away from this.

Besides, jailing Zimmerman at this point will accomplish nothing.  If they really want justice for Trayvon, they need to get rid of "Stand Your Ground", because cops have a tough enough time without prospective serial killers posing as "protectors of the community".

Stand Your Ground had nothing to do with the case.  The defense didn't even bring it up in the trial.

Was the jury not told that as long as Zimmerman felt that his life was threatened at any time during the incident that he would nit have been found guilty?

This has echos of bernard Goetz, but even Goetz wasn't looking for trouble.

Zimmerman was acting foolishly and caused someone's death. He will have to live with that for the rest of his life. I am sure there are those hear who cheer and revel Martin's death, but, well, there are no monsters like people can be.


Zimmerman shot Martin while Martin was straddling him on the ground and punching the shiat out of him and slamming his head into the concrete (the forensics back this up).  That is not a stand your ground situation.  That pure self defense.
 
2013-07-21 05:24:34 PM  

Autistic Hiker: That black parents all over country are terrified that their teenage son could be the next Trayvon Martin?


They should be more terrified of their black children being killed by other blacks.  94% of murdered blacks are killed by blacks.
 
2013-07-21 05:24:35 PM  

dittybopper: tirob: The judge included it in her charge to the jury.

Because it was part of the standard jury instructions for self-defense cases.


This is Professor Jonathan Turley's essay on that:  I am not  a lawyer, I understood little of it, but yes, essentially he goes through point by point to say what you just said. But it is interestingly nuanced in that Professor Turley does not like SYG, but explains how what seems to be its use in the jury instructions is not.

http://jonathanturley.org/2013/07/20/the-stand-your-ground-law-and-t he -zimmerman-trial/
 
2013-07-21 05:24:38 PM  

Autistic Hiker: Popcorn Johnny: coyo: Zimmerman was acting foolishly and caused someone's death.

Zimmerman was reporting a suspicious person black teenager in a hoodieto the police and attempting to provide that persons location. What a moron, right?


Are you seriously trying to suggest that Zimmerman knew what he was doing when he profiled Martin as a criminal threat?   You do understand that is this the heart of the matter, right?  That black parents all over country are terrified that their teenage son could be the next Trayvon Martin?

Whatever else might be said about George Zimmerman, there is no debating that he was acting like a moron that night.


The only reason they are terrified their children will be the next Trayvon Martin is that they don't know the facts of the case.

Don't want your child to be the next Trayvon Martin? Give him a talking to, and tell him that if he holds someone down on the ground and continues to assault that person, he might get shot when the person he is beating pulls a gun and fires it in self-defense. Tell him not to get I fights for no better reason than a "creepy ass cracker" is looking at them funny.

Problem solved.
 
2013-07-21 05:25:13 PM  
youncasqua:
.

The fallacy in your argument is that it accords Zimmerman's words probative value, of which they have none. We've no credible reason to believe Zimmerman followed Trayvon to keep him in sight. The credible evidence shows Zimmerman followed Trayvon with an aggressive purpose.

And anyway, it's less than clear he wasn't committing a crime. Florida statute specifically defines stalking as two incidents of following a person with malicious purpose. It further defines "course of conduct" as:

"a pattern of conduct composed of a series of acts over a period of time, however short, which evidences a continuity of purpose."

We may permissibly infer Zimmerman's malicious purpose from his apparent assumption of Trayvon's criminality, his use of epithets to describe him, and his chambering of a round in his gun while on the phone with police.

By analogy to the statute's "course of conduct" definition, we may argue that two instances of "following" a person may happen over any period time, "however short," ...


Hey look everyone, this guy was able decipher everything in a way that would have given TM his due justice.
I wonder why the prosecution didn't realize all this from the get-go?
 
2013-07-21 05:27:20 PM  

Popcorn Johnny: Autistic Hiker: Are you seriously trying to suggest that Zimmerman knew what he was doing when he profiled Martin as a criminal threat?   You do understand that is this the heart of the matter, right?  That black parents all over country are terrified that their teenage son could be the next Trayvon Martin?

Are you seriously trying to suggest that if a non-black sees a black acting suspiciously and reports it to police, they're being racist? Race has nothing to do with this case and you and the rest of the racists out there need to get your head out of the stand and try to understand that.


i.imgur.com
Click to embiggen
 
2013-07-21 05:28:02 PM  

youncasqua: Pardon me. I thought you referred to the publicity seeking juror's statements. But if you're referring to Jeantel's statements, they have roughly the same probative value as Zimmerman's. They should be treated similarly, which means accorded no weight.


I'll agree that her testimony shouldn't be given any weight, I've felt that way all along. As for Zim's statements, considering they're backed up with evidence, they have to be considered. Could he be lying about some of the details? Sure he could, but considering the evidence, we know he's telling the truth about much of what occurred.
 
2013-07-21 05:29:18 PM  

youncasqua: We may permissibly infer

...

I think you are at least deserving of some kudos for your persistence in continuing with this line of reasoning thread after thread, given how spectacularly wrong it is.

You don't get to infer, you have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt.
 
Displayed 50 of 548 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter





In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report