Gadawg73
Gold Member
- Feb 22, 2009
- 14,426
- 1,618
Shut the fuck up! If you're not going to address anything I've said, don't quote me or even bother saying anything. I never said anything about what the judge is supposed to tell the jury, or when. I said that presumption of innocence means that the accused has to be granted a trial before he can be punished. The problem is that you seem to want it to mean that there must first be a trial before someone can be arrested and charged with a crime.
That's rich coming from someone who is babbling on, using SAT words, and not knowing what the fuck they actually mean. Listen, we're not talking about a trial over whether someone broke your window and interrupted you while watching "Kick My Balls." We're talking about real deal, grown up stuff, mkay?
Who has said anything about denying due process? Stop tearing down the straw man, Dorothy, he didn't do anything to you. Nobody said that Zimmerman should be thrown in prison on a whim and that should be the end of it. The issue that people have is that the police are not interested in arresting and charging Zimmerman for his crime. He should be arrested, charged, tried, and convicted. But your entire position seems to be that charging him would be a violation of due process, which is an absurdity because it would be ADMINISTERING DUE PROCESS.
How many criminal cases have you investigated and gone to trial?
Where did you get your POST training and studied criminal procedure?
Where did you take criminal justice at the university?
Where did I state anywhere I had a problem charging this guy with anything?
If you would educate yourself on the law the police have no duty to arrest anyone if THE LAW AND STATUTES of their state do not warrant them to do so.
I stated clearly that I do not like Florida law and it stinks but that is THE LAW.
I have worked similar cases here where the law was bad and know the process. I have investigated over 200 murder cases and many were self defense under the law.\
I do not like it anymore than you do these gun toting cowboys out there. PROBABLY, the evidence is that this guy chased this kid down, a fight ensued and we do not know who started it.
WE DO KNOW FLORIDA LAW and Florida law is that it is LEGAL to shoot to kill if the otherguy started the fight.
So tell us Clarence, WHO STARTED THE FIGHT AND WHO HIT WHO FIRST?
So you are a smallish 17 year old kid. You are followed then confronted by a very large angry man you don't know. Does it matter who hit first? The kid had reason, given the many cases like this we have seen, to take whatever action he thought neccessary.
Were this my son, on the what I have heard of the tapes, Zimmermann would already be dead, and artistically so. The Scotch-Irish runs deep.
Given prior actions, the police department of Sanford merely followed their normal routine in failling to arrest Zimmermann. This is why we have the hate crime laws.
Good argument at trial but the law is the law.
It always who hits first in civil and criminal law. He could have kept on walking.
You have to show material fact that the person was actively trying to AVOID confrontation for The Stand Your Ground Statute not to apply.
But as I have stated time and time again, your or my suppositions do not mean a thing.
And all you have provided are maybes and supposititons.
Respectfully, which is nothing.