The Official Zimmerman Trial Verdict Thread

[legaleagle_45]

FL Man Cleared in 'Stand Your Ground' Stabbing - FindLaw Blotter

That's not a statute. It's a blog

Yep. And the guy got off, based on the statute. Sorry if that shatters you belief system.

So tell me, dillo, do you think death is a suitable punishment for theft? Are you all for vigilante justice?

If you actually read the decision, you would have learned that the man chased the individual and when he caught up with the individual, the individual attacked him by swinging a sack of radios at him. The opinion then asserted that the man was entitled to employ self defense to fend off this illegal attack. It was not based upon the right to kill a thief... it was predicated upon the thief attacking the man when the man caught up with him.

 

[dilloduck]

That's not a statute. It's a blog

Yep. And the guy got off, based on the statute. Sorry if that shatters you belief system.

So tell me, dillo, do you think death is a suitable punishment for theft? Are you all for vigilante justice?

If you actually read the decision, you would have learned that the man chased the individual and when he causght up with the individual, the individual attacked him by swinging a sack of radios at him. The opinion then asserted that the man was entitled to employ self defense to fend off this illegal attack. It was not based upon the right to kill a thief... it was predicated upon the theif attacking the man when the man caught up with him.

Ravi doesn't read

 

[Sunshine]

That's not a statute. It's a blog

Yep. And the guy got off, based on the statute. Sorry if that shatters you belief system.

So tell me, dillo, do you think death is a suitable punishment for theft? Are you all for vigilante justice?

If you actually read the decision, you would have learned that the man chased the individual and when he causght up with the individual, the individual attacked him by swinging a sack of radios at him. The opinion then asserted that the man was entitled to employ self defense to fend off this illegal attack. It was not based upon the right to kill a thief... it was predicated upon the theif attacking the man when the man caught up with him.

I teach legal issues to nurses. I always tell them the worst thing they can do is to try to interpret statutes and cases for themselves. But, like most people, they do it anyway.

 

[Sunshine]

Yep. And the guy got off, based on the statute. Sorry if that shatters you belief system.

So tell me, dillo, do you think death is a suitable punishment for theft? Are you all for vigilante justice?

If you actually read the decision, you would have learned that the man chased the individual and when he causght up with the individual, the individual attacked him by swinging a sack of radios at him. The opinion then asserted that the man was entitled to employ self defense to fend off this illegal attack. It was not based upon the right to kill a thief... it was predicated upon the theif attacking the man when the man caught up with him.

Ravi doesn't read

Wha..........? She doesn't have to read. She just gets out her dowsing rod and 'feels' around until she is an expert.

 

[Sunshine]

Is it just me, or has the silence on this thread become deafening?

 

[Luissa]

Is it just me, or has the silence on this thread become deafening?

You mean to tell me people have lives away from this board? Wow, who would have thunk?

 

[asterism]

How would you know how he felt after being followed twice? He is dead, he can't tell us.

So what if they both had legitimate reasons to fear for their lives?

Then Zimmerman started it by following him.

As it turns out this isn't 3rd grade "But teacher, HE started it!"

For a jury to decide is whether there is enough evidence to prove murder or enough evidence to prove negligence for manslaughter. Following someone is not illegal.

 

[asterism]

I am trying to think in the years I went to law school if 'he started it' was ever used as a defense. The closest I recall would be the cases of incitement, but those cases really don't involve any retaliation, they are usually incitement to harm a third party. It is not illegal to walk behind someone. If you repeatedly walk behind them, follow them, sit in front of their house ortheir work place for some extended length of time that is stalking and is a misdemeanor. In some states continued stalking is a felony. There is nothing in this case that indicates Zimmerman was stalking Martin. He has every right to walk behind him. Anyone had the right to get out of their vehicle and walk behind Martin. Anyone. That act alone is not sufficient to be stalking or incitement. The final outcome is the reason this has ended up on court. There is more to the story as we are learning, and sadly, the media has already tried the case in the court of public opinion. I think it will be really hard fo Zimmerman to get a fair trial.

I don't imagine your law school covered Floriduh's current laws. It does matter who started an argument that ended in on party dying.

I can't imagine someone who actually went to law school saying you can assert self-defense for a fight you started.

How did Zimmerman start the fight?

 

[Esmeralda]

I don't imagine your law school covered Floriduh's current laws. It does matter who started an argument that ended in on party dying.

I can't imagine someone who actually went to law school saying you can assert self-defense for a fight you started.

How did Zimmerman start the fight?

When we have someone who 'went to law school' but is now a nurse, I wouldn't put much weight in what they have to say about the law.

We have no idea what happened. We have Zimmerman's mostly ludicrous story to go by as to what happened in those last minutes before he shot Martin. Especially someone who was knowledgeable about the law wouldn't be guessing or making a lot of assumptions based on the evidence we have: only one person's story, a person who it has been proved has already lied to the court and has been violent in the past. It is very prejudicial to assume Martin started a 'fight.' Very.

 

[jon_berzerk]

You don't know who 'started' it. Unless of course you were there, in which case you should come forward as a witness.

Your claim was that even if Zimmerman was the aggressor, he could still claim self-defense.

I am trying to think in the years I went to law school if 'he started it' was ever used as a defense.

You don't know that he was the 'aggressor.' All you know is he was walking behind Martin. Walking behind someone is not illegal.

" All you know is he was walking behind Martin"

at this point this not absolute

according to zimmerman he discontinued looking for martin

 

[Ravi]

That's not a statute. It's a blog

Yep. And the guy got off, based on the statute. Sorry if that shatters you belief system.

So tell me, dillo, do you think death is a suitable punishment for theft? Are you all for vigilante justice?

If you actually read the decision, you would have learned that the man chased the individual and when he caught up with the individual, the individual attacked him by swinging a sack of radios at him. The opinion then asserted that the man was entitled to employ self defense to fend off this illegal attack. It was not based upon the right to kill a thief... it was predicated upon the thief attacking the man when the man caught up with him.

Yes, I read that. The thief should have been granted the same right to defend himself since at that point he would have been in fear of great bodily harm.

 

[JoeB131]

Is it just me, or has the silence on this thread become deafening?

It's just you.

Your boy Zimmerman is going down for murder. Deal with it.

 

[WorldWatcher]

Your claim was that even if Zimmerman was the aggressor, he could still claim self-defense.

You don't know that he was the 'aggressor.' All you know is he was walking behind Martin. Walking behind someone is not illegal.

" All you know is he was walking behind Martin"

at this point this not absolute

according to zimmerman he discontinued looking for martin

Yep he discontinued looking for Martin, his story is that he did continue in the same direction as Martin though behind darkened houses to look for a street sign. Everyone knows there are street signs in darkened areas behind houses. The nearest street signs were to the West and South, Zimmerman moved East (which "just happened" to be the same direction as Martin) where there were no street signs.

>>>>

 

[jon_berzerk]

You don't know that he was the 'aggressor.' All you know is he was walking behind Martin. Walking behind someone is not illegal.

" All you know is he was walking behind Martin"

at this point this not absolute

according to zimmerman he discontinued looking for martin

Yep he discontinued looking for Martin, his story is that he did continue in the same direction as Martin though behind darkened houses to look for a street sign. Everyone knows there are street signs in darkened areas behind houses. The nearest street signs were to the West and South, Zimmerman moved East (which "just happened" to be the same direction as Martin) where there were no street signs.

>>>>

could tell ya where a sign of house number is

that will come out at trial

 

[Sunshine]

I can't imagine someone who actually went to law school saying you can assert self-defense for a fight you started.

How did Zimmerman start the fight?

When we have someone who 'went to law school' but is now a nurse, I wouldn't put much weight in what they have to say about the law.

We have no idea what happened. We have Zimmerman's mostly ludicrous story to go by as to what happened in those last minutes before he shot Martin. Especially someone who was knowledgeable about the law wouldn't be guessing or making a lot of assumptions based on the evidence we have: only one person's story, a person who it has been proved has already lied to the court and has been violent in the past. It is very prejudicial to assume Martin started a 'fight.' Very.

Well when someone reads a forum as long as you have and gets it all backward I wouldn't put much weight on what you say. I am an board certified NP with a BSN, MSN, and DEA number. I also have a JD which I got at the end of my nursing career to be the capstone of my career. My JD is as valid as any other. I didn't get it to practice. I teach legal issues to nurses and FYI, the ABA does not require a license for teaching.

Now, continue on posting speculation as fact. It is not illegal to walk behind someone. It is not even illegal to walk behind them in a dark alley. It is illegal for the person you are walking behind to turn and assail you.

 

[Sunshine]

Yep. And the guy got off, based on the statute. Sorry if that shatters you belief system.

So tell me, dillo, do you think death is a suitable punishment for theft? Are you all for vigilante justice?

If you actually read the decision, you would have learned that the man chased the individual and when he caught up with the individual, the individual attacked him by swinging a sack of radios at him. The opinion then asserted that the man was entitled to employ self defense to fend off this illegal attack. It was not based upon the right to kill a thief... it was predicated upon the thief attacking the man when the man caught up with him.

Yes, I read that. The thief should have been granted the same right to defend himself since at that point he would have been in fear of great bodily harm.

Please post the link for the opinion. I would like to read it as well.

 

[Sunshine]

Is it just me, or has the silence on this thread become deafening?

It's just you.

Your boy Zimmerman is going down for murder. Deal with it.

You post gets a NEG!

Ravi always get quiet when she is beaten. Now she pretends to have read the opinion, which she doesn't even know how to find.

And I am no relation to Zimmerman.

 

[Ravi]

Is it just me, or has the silence on this thread become deafening?

It's just you.

Your boy Zimmerman is going down for murder. Deal with it.

You post gets a NEG!

Ravi always get quiet when she is beaten. Now she pretends to have read the opinion, which she doesn't even know how to find.

And I am no relation to Zimmerman.

Actually, sparky, I signed off and read a book last night. Try it sometime.

Also, I am not your research monkey. If you wish to read the opinion google it up. Someone with your vast knowledge should be able to do just that.

 

[Sunshine]

It's just you.

Your boy Zimmerman is going down for murder. Deal with it.

You post gets a NEG!

Ravi always get quiet when she is beaten. Now she pretends to have read the opinion, which she doesn't even know how to find.

And I am no relation to Zimmerman.

Actually, sparky, I signed off and read a book last night. Try it sometime.

Also, I am not your research monkey. If you wish to read the opinion google it up. Someone with your vast knowledge should be able to do just that.

Says the person with the 30+ post count/day to the person who has the 6+ post count/day. How utterly funny you are, pretending to be something you are not. It's pretty easy to tell who has a life away from this forum.

Total Posts
Total Posts: 58,758
Posts Per Day: 30.60 Find all posts by Ravi
Find all threads started by Ravi

Total Posts: 8,634
Posts Per Day: 6.85
Find all posts by Sunshine
Find all threads started by Sunshine

I've read more books than you have ever seen. And you claim to have read the actual opinion when you don't even know how to find it.. You also asserted that it said a particular thing, so it is encumbent upon you to post the link. Your little game isn't even a good save. You have been bested on this thread and pretending to have knowledge you don't have isn't making you look any smarter.

 

[jon_berzerk]

oddly if memory serves

the same guy who was cleared in the case

was shot dead three months later

by a stray bullet