boyst Posted June 25, 2013 Share Posted June 25, 2013 I could use a new TV, about 50-55 inches, if anyone wants to pick one up for me. I'll pay for shipping and give you a couple hundred for your trouble. But I won't bail you out. You can borrow Kelly's (gf's) tape measure... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bigfatbillsfan Posted June 25, 2013 Share Posted June 25, 2013 Saw some clips of opening arguments on the news just now. George's lawyer has a good approach/demeanor. Looked good for him imo...based on what very little I just saw. His lawyer looks amazing. As with you I have only seen a little bit. But the defense is making the prosecution look like a high school football team taking on a pro team. Stand your ground defense has nothing to do with this case. I know that the defense is not claiming stand your ground as a defense for GZ's actions but I still think that law needs to be tweaked. It's written similar to what we have here in AZ. In it's current state a person can start a fight with someone. And when that someone is kicking their ass they can pull out a gun and shoot them. It happens here all the time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rob's House Posted June 25, 2013 Share Posted June 25, 2013 I know that the defense is not claiming stand your ground as a defense for GZ's actions but I still think that law needs to be tweaked. It's written similar to what we have here in AZ. In it's current state a person can start a fight with someone. And when that someone is kicking their ass they can pull out a gun and shoot them. It happens here all the time. I don't know what state you're in, or how the case law defines the details in FL, so I won't dispute what you're saying, but generally speaking all stand your ground means is that you don't have to retreat in order to maintain your right to self-defense. I've never heard of a jurisdiction or a case where the initial aggressor retains a right to use deadly force in self-defense. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dayman Posted June 25, 2013 Share Posted June 25, 2013 I know that the defense is not claiming stand your ground as a defense for GZ's actions but I still think that law needs to be tweaked. It's written similar to what we have here in AZ. In it's current state a person can start a fight with someone. And when that someone is kicking their ass they can pull out a gun and shoot them. It happens here all the time. It needs tweaking. Comments by Florida lawmakers suggested as such...although inaction in the latest session did not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bigfatbillsfan Posted June 25, 2013 Share Posted June 25, 2013 I don't know what state you're in, or how the case law defines the details in FL, so I won't dispute what you're saying, but generally speaking all stand your ground means is that you don't have to retreat in order to maintain your right to self-defense. I've never heard of a jurisdiction or a case where the initial aggressor retains a right to use deadly force in self-defense. I live in Flagstaff, Arizona. Hippie capital of the universe. In AZ all you have to do is prove you felt your life was threatened at the time you used deadly force. Nor do you have any responsibility to try to retreat from a threat. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rob's House Posted June 25, 2013 Share Posted June 25, 2013 It needs tweaking. Comments by Florida lawmakers suggested as such...although inaction in the latest session did not. What kind of tweaking? I'm not necessarily disagreeing, but the fact that a politician who managed to get himself elected said so doesn't really carry a lot of weight around here. What specifically needs to be changed? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bigfatbillsfan Posted June 25, 2013 Share Posted June 25, 2013 What kind of tweaking? I'm not necessarily disagreeing, but the fact that a politician who managed to get himself elected said so doesn't really carry a lot of weight around here. What specifically needs to be changed? The person who is claiming stand your ground should also be responsible for proving that they are not the initiator of the confrontation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rob's House Posted June 25, 2013 Share Posted June 25, 2013 I live in Flagstaff, Arizona. Hippie capital of the universe. In AZ all you have to do is prove you felt your life was threatened at the time you used deadly force. Nor do you have any responsibility to try to retreat from a threat. !@#$ AZ. Dirty cheating fascist bastards put speed check cameras on the side of the road so that when you go to the Grand Canyon you come home to a $200 ticket with a picture of you going 12 over in your rental car on the way back to Vegas. At least with a real cop in a cop car you've got a chance. These candy asses take the sport out of it. I bet the AZ state pastime is spotlight hunting. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dayman Posted June 25, 2013 Share Posted June 25, 2013 (edited) What kind of tweaking? I'm not necessarily disagreeing, but the fact that a politician who managed to get himself elected said so doesn't really carry a lot of weight around here. What specifically needs to be changed? The law abrogates longstanding common law duties. IMO....it was the legislatures intent to make people more protected in situations where they may be subject to random violence. As written, and as applied in some cases, the effects of this law have not been confined to such circumstances. IMO, when the two people are acquaintances, and when other evidence goes to factors like initial aggressor and the like...the law needs to do more than remain silent...and as such should be amended. There was a body of case law that addressed this type of issue...this provision change that...and it is unclear how this should be applied in certain circumstances ... many people (including law makers in Florida) do not agree that the person seeking immunity under this statute should be unquestionably protected by irrefutable presumptions in all circumstances...most notably when evidence can prove up who was the initial aggressor...but also when it is a factual question for the jury or when other circumstances such as relationship and the like are present. Edited June 25, 2013 by SameOldBills Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rob's House Posted June 25, 2013 Share Posted June 25, 2013 The law abrogates longstanding common law duties. IMO....it was the legislatures intent to make people more protected in situations where they may be subject to random violence. As written, and as applied in some cases, the effects of this law have not been confined to such circumstances. IMO, when the two people are acquaintances, and when other evidence goes to factors like initial aggressor and the like...the law needs to do more than remain silent...and as such should be amended. There was a body of case law that addressed this type of issue...this provision change that...and it is unclear how this should be applied in certain circumstances ... many people (including law makers in Florida) do not agree that the person seeking immunity under this statute should be unquestionably protected by irrefutable presumptions. Your analysis is still pretty vague. If I have the time and inclination tomorrow I'll look over FL case law, but I'm not really seeing the problem. I'm not sure why I shouldn't be allowed to defend myself against someone simply because we're acquainted, and it's unclear which irrebuttable presumptions you're referring to. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rdnlng Posted June 25, 2013 Share Posted June 25, 2013 The person who is claiming stand your ground should also be responsible for proving that they are not the initiator of the confrontation. So nice to see you out BFBF. Since this thread is going along so nicely and even your words here are not "dismissable", I'd like to see what you learned from the last assignment I gave you, but not here. Meet me over in the "foreclosure" thread where we won't sully up a decent conversation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dayman Posted June 25, 2013 Share Posted June 25, 2013 Your analysis is still pretty vague. If I have the time and inclination tomorrow I'll look over FL case law, but I'm not really seeing the problem. I'm not sure why I shouldn't be allowed to defend myself against someone simply because we're acquainted, and it's unclear which irrebuttable presumptions you're referring to. Well just think about it, defendant bears the burden (preponderance of the evidence) at a pretrial evidentiary hearing. Elements: 1) no unlawful activity 2) in a place you have a right to be 3) reasonably believe necessary to prevent death or great bodily harm to self or another or to prevent commission of forcible felony. Prove that up and no jury, no trial, you are immune. That's it. And there are open questions, unresolved between courts of different jurisdiction about how this applies to various situations... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted June 25, 2013 Share Posted June 25, 2013 Similarly, he kept referring to the handgun as a “semi-automatic,” As opposed to what, a muzzle-loading flintlock? Does anything more than a single-action revolver now demonstrate racism and murderous intent? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rdnlng Posted June 25, 2013 Share Posted June 25, 2013 As opposed to what, a muzzle-loading flintlock? Does anything more than a single-action revolver now demonstrate racism and murderous intent? I swear, if this prosecution doesn't have a smoking gun (muzzle loading flintlock?) then the only good that might come out of this is that a trial possibly could save GZ's life. And what I mean by that is that it could possibly quiet the racebaiters two men of God. Other than that it seems like they have nothing that could even remotely convince a jury of a guilty verdict. Obviously the trial needs to be played out but if they have no more than they've professed to have, they have nothing that should come close to convicting anyone. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted June 25, 2013 Share Posted June 25, 2013 I swear, if this prosecution doesn't have a smoking gun (muzzle loading flintlock?) then the only good that might come out of this is that a trial possibly could save GZ's life. And what I mean by that is that it could possibly quiet the racebaiters two men of God. Other than that it seems like they have nothing that could even remotely convince a jury of a guilty verdict. Obviously the trial needs to be played out but if they have no more than they've professed to have, they have nothing that should come close to convicting anyone. Yeah, right. I'm sure Sharpton and Jackson won't call for demonstrations in the face of the tragedy of justice that an acquittal would represent. Ironically, "justice" to them is nothing more than a state-approved lynching. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NoSaint Posted June 25, 2013 Share Posted June 25, 2013 Man, CNN just had a panel of about 45 lawyers judges random people off the street and stray animals agree unanimously that the prosecution both won the day but also was way more handsome Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bigfatbillsfan Posted June 25, 2013 Share Posted June 25, 2013 !@#$ AZ. Dirty cheating fascist bastards put speed check cameras on the side of the road so that when you go to the Grand Canyon you come home to a $200 ticket with a picture of you going 12 over in your rental car on the way back to Vegas. At least with a real cop in a cop car you've got a chance. These candy asses take the sport out of it. I bet the AZ state pastime is spotlight hunting. Good, at least I'm not the only one that feels that way. So nice to see you out BFBF. Since this thread is going along so nicely and even your words here are not "dismissable", I'd like to see what you learned from the last assignment I gave you, but not here. Meet me over in the "foreclosure" thread where we won't sully up a decent conversation. The assignment you gave me? I believe you asked me to do something and I told you to go !@#$ yourself. That hardly seems like you handing me an assignment. So please, go !@#$ yourself. Man, CNN just had a panel of about 45 lawyers judges random people off the street and stray animals agree unanimously that the prosecution both won the day but also was way more handsome Are they sure they were watching the right trial? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rdnlng Posted June 25, 2013 Share Posted June 25, 2013 (edited) Good, at least I'm not the only one that feels that way. The assignment you gave me? I believe you asked me to do something and I told you to go !@#$ yourself. That hardly seems like you handing me an assignment. So please, go !@#$ yourself. Are they sure they were watching the right trial? Can you show me this, or are you just a little confused over your spelling assignment? Please do it in the proper thread though. I don't think this fine thread needs to be polluted with your false statements. Edited June 25, 2013 by 3rdnlng Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gary M Posted June 25, 2013 Share Posted June 25, 2013 Here's another man's opinion, down near the end of the article: http://hosted.ap.org...-06-24-09-54-13 Zimmerman, 29, could get life in prison if convicted of second-degree murder for gunning down Martin on Feb. 26, 2012 nothing provocative in that article. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NoSaint Posted June 25, 2013 Share Posted June 25, 2013 Are they sure they were watching the right trial? it was amazing the level of disparity between their coverage of it and what ive seen of the video along with commentary other places.... they were having a jolly old time making fun of the defense, and im pretty sure they were doodling hearts on their notebooks and batting their eyes at just the sight of videos of the prosecutor during opening statements. theyd essentially go around the room of "legal experts" saying you would have to be a moron to think the defense looked good and then ask their average joe "jury" what they thought - of course none wanted to be a moron on national tv. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts