Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Stalking is never charged when there's someone arrested for murder. Stalking is something that would be charged by itself when there's no killing.
I'll admit that saying he was stalking is a little bit of a stretch, but since no one has come up with a better word to describe it, I use it. He was ALMOST stalking, so close to it as to be indecipherable. Well you get the idea.
Seriously? That's your argument. You aren't familiar with the criminal justice system are you?
Police charge you with every crime you could have possibly committed. That way there is more leverage for negotiations and if that fails, there is more of a chance the jury could find them guilty of something.
Stalking is never charged when there's someone arrested for murder. Stalking is something that would be charged by itself when there's no killing.
I'll admit that saying he was stalking is a little bit of a stretch, but since no one has come up with a better word to describe it, I use it. He was ALMOST stalking, so close to it as to be indecipherable. Well you get the idea.
Seriously? That's your argument. You aren't familiar with the criminal justice system are you?
Police charge you with every crime you could have possibly committed. That way there is more leverage for negotiations and if that fails, there is more of a chance the jury could find them guilty of something.
If you're talking about a list, yea, they'll include jaywalking too. I was talking about the main indictment, and of course, a murder charge can later be bargained down to only stalking if they ultimately can't prove the murder. I doubt anyone is convicted of just murder AND stalking. When you're convicted of murder, why would they bother with including a stalking conviction?
And no better word? Seriously? you expect me to believe that you aren't using Stalking to try to pretend that Zimmerman was doing something wrong?
Here's a better word: FOLLOWING. I have a seriously difficult time believing that you were unaware of this much better word to describe it.
A jury charge for lesser included offenses is not unusual, she could allow them to consider manslaughter but also varying degrees of assault. She also will instruct that these charges can only be considered if the jury fails to believe the claim of self defense.
Since when do Judges set charges? That is the job of the Prosecution.
The lesser charges where not there at the beginning of the trial. If they had been it may have changed the way the Defense Lawyer handled the case.
It seems very wrong to me that a Prosecutor can add charges at the end of the trial, expecting to a conviction on them when those charges were never defended against during the trial itself.
What this judge is doing is "JURY TAMPERING" hoping that Zimmerman or his attorneys would get emotional (or at the very least look like there were hiding something).
It's telling me, more than ever, that Zimmerman is not guilty and will walk.
If there was ever a time for a judge to go before a review board this is it.
Since when does a judge have the right to antagonize someone who has clearly invoked their 5th Amendment right as guaranteed by the Constitution? That judge needs to be removed immediately.
I am an attorney and I must say I am disgusted by this exchange: it is unethical to attempt to compel an answer from a defendant apart from their attorney. Mr. West was exactly correct to repeatedly object, and this "judge" has no business sitting in on a traffic court proceeding, let alone a murder case. She is totally ignorant of the law, and judicial ethics.
"Wouldn't you agree" is a figure of speech or some kind of hypothetical question. I don't know the exact grammatical term for it.
You could ask, "Wouldn't you agree the world is flat." That doesn't mean the person asking the question believes it's flat or wants to convince people of that. I'm going to start charging now for grammar lessons. LMAO
"Wouldn't you agree?" is stating that you wish the person you are addressing would accept your point of view. If you say "wouldn't you agree that George Zimmerman is a sociopath?" then you are stating that YOU believe George Zimmerman is a sociopath and that you want whoever you're addressing to agree with your view.
The person that has a problem with comprehension here is you, Sparky...
It could be construed that way, but primarily in the text I used it, the question is a hypothetical. That's the problem with foreigners. They often can't pick up the gist of English.
The judge behaved very inappropiately and I hope she gets some comeuppance for it.
Stalking is never charged when there's someone arrested for murder. Stalking is something that would be charged by itself when there's no killing.
I'll admit that saying he was stalking is a little bit of a stretch, but since no one has come up with a better word to describe it, I use it. He was ALMOST stalking, so close to it as to be indecipherable. Well you get the idea.
Seriously? That's your argument. You aren't familiar with the criminal justice system are you?
Police charge you with every crime you could have possibly committed. That way there is more leverage for negotiations and if that fails, there is more of a chance the jury could find them guilty of something.
If you're talking about a list, yea, they'll include jaywalking too. I was talking about the main indictment, and of course, a murder charge can later be bargained down to only stalking if they ultimately can't prove the murder. I doubt anyone is convicted of just murder AND stalking. When you're convicted of murder, why would they bother with including a stalking conviction?
That is just as silly as arguing that people who are being attacked have to run away instead of defending themselves.
wtf? That is why the law was written, so people being attacked aren't obligated to run away. Having an overweight fucker with a gun following you is a valid reason to be proactive.
Stand your ground means you are allowed to use deadly force without running away, it does not mean you can start a fight because you think the guy is mean. Feel free to prove me wrong by citing the exact portion of the Florida law that backs you up.
wtf? That is why the law was written, so people being attacked aren't obligated to run away. Having an overweight fucker with a gun following you is a valid reason to be proactive.
Stand your ground means you are allowed to use deadly force without running away, it does not mean you can start a fight because you think the guy is mean. Feel free to prove me wrong by citing the exact portion of the Florida law that backs you up.
However, a person is justified in the use of deadly force and does not have a duty to retreat if:
(1) He or she reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the imminent commission of a forcible felony;
Interesting................apparently a lot of you posters have never had a bloody nose.
Yeah....................it can go down your throat, but when it does, you cough and sneeze trying to keep the blood from going down in your lungs. Sorry, but the body is wired to do that very thing.
And.....................when you sneeze, or cough, or figure out somewhere else for the blood to go, it's generally not in the closed part of the body.
Me personally? I think that Zimmerman followed TM, and was confronted by him (BTW................FL law says it doesn't matter who wins, it matters who starts the fight) and TM punched him in the nose for hassling him (that is................after GZ threw the first punch as stated by the girl he'd called when this happened), and GZ was pissed about having his ass kicked (remember, he scored low in the self defense class) and pulled the gun and shot TM.
GZ needs to go to jail. For at least 5 years.
Someone--I don't know who--remarked that he had an unusually interesting and accomplished group of friends.
I haven't thought much about his appearance--under such circumstances anyone who can sit stoically through hours and hours of the legal process gets a pass from me.
'They' thought the woman called as a final witness was a good choice and it clarified to me that he has a genuine interest in his community. That is how I would respond to her testimony.
Far too emotional myself to serve on this jury and perhaps on any jury.
Why he couldn't have hit TM over the head with the gun--but I don't know. Self defense.
Having never engaged in a physical altercation it is difficult to judge what thoughts or feelings might be involved. Adrenaline---but that is the jury's job to decide.
When a man says, 'I'm cooking my.................' (stew, roast, steak, spaghetti, whatever) I know I am going to have to take an anti emetic to be able to keep it down.
The only man cooking I can tolerate is that of the ones who have been to culinary school.
You haven't eaten here, Sunshine.
He was on drugs
Assholes did get away
He did run
He stopped following
What's the problem ?
Dersh' thinks there is reasonable doubt
Alan Dershowitz: New Forensic Evidence Is Consistent With George Zimmerman's Self Defense Claim
Judge Debra Nelson is a trial lawyer. She used to be well respected until she presided over this farce. She gleefully ignores pertinent case law, badgers the defendant, denies perfectly good evidence from admission and has been downright belligerent with Don West. For pete's sake, she must have forgotten to study the Judicial Code of Ethics of Florida...
As with any lesser charge, there needs to be proof or evidence to back that up. You need to delve into the aspect of culpable negligence to determine if you can charge Zimmerman with manslaughter. Turns out you can't. Leave the man alone, his life is already turned upside down, and people looking for blood are wanting to put him away for some scurrilous reason. For which there is no evidence to support.
