44
   

Florida's Stand your Ground law

 
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Fri 13 Apr, 2012 07:27 pm
@DrewDad,
This is correct - any number of lesser charges can be introduced later by the prosecutors.

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
snood
 
  4  
Reply Fri 13 Apr, 2012 07:52 pm
Jesus.

This sick sonofabitch is actually talking about how much money Zimmerman can make off of this.

Everytime I think I've got gauged just about how rancid and low a piece of scum Omsick is, I find I underestimate.
hawkeye10
 
  1  
Reply Fri 13 Apr, 2012 10:07 pm
@DrewDad,
DrewDad wrote:

If I recall correctly from another thread, Florida allows conviction on lesser charges, or the prosecution can offer that option during the trial.

I don't think they'll have to remove this charge and file another.


I seriously doubt that the state can put on a trial for a citizen without showing probable cause for the top line charge. What I am saying is that if justice prevails George will be on trial for manslaughter, not murder, which sounds right because almost all observers have concluded that manslaughter is the most serious charge that the state has a chance of gaining a conviction on.
DrewDad
 
  1  
Reply Fri 13 Apr, 2012 10:22 pm
@hawkeye10,
I thought your whole schtick was about how the state can do anything it damn well pleases, and citizens just have to bite the pillow.
hawkeye10
 
  -2  
Reply Fri 13 Apr, 2012 10:24 pm
@snood,
snood wrote:

Jesus.

This sick sonofabitch is actually talking about how much money Zimmerman can make off of this.

Everytime I think I've got gauged just about how rancid and low a piece of scum Omsick is, I find I underestimate.


As opposed to Snood, who is absolutely sure that his negative moral evaluation of the other guy by definition means that the other guy is wrong, so there is no need to provide evidence. We have David the alleged reprobate and Snood, the would be Pope.
hawkeye10
 
  2  
Reply Fri 13 Apr, 2012 10:31 pm
@DrewDad,
DrewDad wrote:

I thought your whole schtick was about how the state can do anything it damn well pleases, and citizens just have to bite the pillow.


I have argued repeatedly that the American Government violates the laws of the nation, abuses us citizens, and usually gets away with it because the American people are too stupid to resist our abuser....yes. When I said that the state "can not" put a citizen on trial for a charge for which they have not shown probable cause I was speaking of "with-in the law". This does not mean that the state will not try to violate the law, or that they will not get away with it.
DrewDad
 
  2  
Reply Fri 13 Apr, 2012 11:07 pm
@hawkeye10,
...because you're qualified to determine when the government is overstepping its authority.

Remind me of your qualifications, again?
0 Replies
 
OmSigDAVID
 
  -1  
Reply Fri 13 Apr, 2012 11:23 pm
@Ragman,
Ragman wrote:
I have known people who were lawyers and they were duty-bound
to convince others of their correctness...no MATTER what the circumstance!
That does not come out of "duty".
THAT comes out of FUN.





David
0 Replies
 
OmSigDAVID
 
  -1  
Reply Fri 13 Apr, 2012 11:29 pm
@hawkeye10,
hawkeye10 wrote:
I think all the state will need to do is refile the charge as manslaugter.....do you not agree?
Yes. I do NOT agree.





David
0 Replies
 
OmSigDAVID
 
  -2  
Reply Fri 13 Apr, 2012 11:39 pm
@hawkeye10,
snood wrote:
Jesus.

This sick sonofabitch is actually talking about how much money Zimmerman can make off of this.

Everytime I think I've got gauged just about how rancid and low a piece of scum Omsick is, I find I underestimate.
hawkeye10 wrote:
As opposed to Snood, who is absolutely sure that his negative moral evaluation of the other guy by definition means that the other guy is wrong, so there is no need to provide evidence. We have David the alleged reprobate and Snood, the would be Pope.
Mr. Z is in his youth; twenty-something.
The hysterical liberals have created circumstances
of exalting him, near effortlessly, to wealth beyond the dreams of avarice.
He owes the liberals his gratitude; (at least, to raise a glass of good liquor, in salute; that wud be fair.)

I wonder if he is thinking of WHO
shud star in the role of George Zimmerman -- maybe Mel Gibson ???????





David
hawkeye10
 
  0  
Reply Fri 13 Apr, 2012 11:46 pm
@OmSigDAVID,
Quote:
Mr. Z is in his youth; twenty-something

I was thinking just the other day that what we have here is two young men, in a very short chance interaction that went very wrong. This idea that we had a man stalking and killing a child is pure liberal fantasy.
OmSigDAVID
 
  -3  
Reply Fri 13 Apr, 2012 11:54 pm
@hawkeye10,
DAVID wrote:
Mr. Z is in his youth; twenty-something
hawkeye10 wrote:
I was thinking just the other day that what we have here is two young men, in a very short chance interaction
that went very wrong. This idea that we had a man stalking and killing a child is pure liberal fantasy.
Yes, but one very much to the long term advantage of George Zimmerman.
What were his chances of raking in THAT kind of $$$$$ b4 that encounter.
In only a few moments, Martin effectively turned him into a multimillionaire.
He set him up for a life of ease in luxury.
I hope that Zimmy will learn to be prudent
in handling the numbers of gold diggers by whom he will be surrounded.

The press that he will get from his forthcoming trial
will augment his name recognition, boosting his market potential.





David
hawkeye10
 
  0  
Reply Sat 14 Apr, 2012 12:08 am
@OmSigDAVID,
I simply do not agree, I think that american law is very driven by emotion and the emotion in this case points towards George getting convicted of something. We also have a policy that citizens are not allowed to profit from their crimes, thus any moneys earned from selling this story will be forfeited. There is still the civil case mind you, as we long ago dispensed with the Constitutional prohibition against double jeopardy.
OmSigDAVID
 
  -3  
Reply Sat 14 Apr, 2012 12:19 am
@hawkeye10,
hawkeye10 wrote:
I simply do not agree, I think that american law is very driven by emotion
and the emotion in this case points towards George getting convicted of something.
That seems unlikely, unless he opts to plead down ( a foolish idea ).



hawkeye10 wrote:
We also have a policy that citizens are not allowed to profit from their crimes,
thus any moneys earned from selling this story will be forfeited.
"Policy" means nothing, unless there is a supporting statute in Florida.
That is likewise inapplicable (if it EXISTS ) if he is not convicted.

The Future looks GOOD for Mr. Z !!!


hawkeye10 wrote:
There is still the civil case mind you, as we long ago dispensed with the Constitutional prohibition against double jeopardy.
He can put them to their proof.
What is the evidence??
He can also throw them a few pennies in settlement.





David
0 Replies
 
snood
 
  5  
Reply Sat 14 Apr, 2012 08:49 am
http://images.ucomics.com/comics/wpcbe/2012/wpcbe120412.jpg
0 Replies
 
parados
 
  2  
Reply Sat 14 Apr, 2012 09:39 am
@OmSigDAVID,
OmSigDAVID wrote:


parados wrote:
The fact that Zimmerman admitted to the shooting,
had a gun on him and a shell casing was found at the scene must not be germaine to the charging I guess.
U guess correctly.
Thay do not show that any crime was committed.





David

That's why we have a trial. The facts are all germane to proving the crime.
0 Replies
 
parados
 
  4  
Reply Sat 14 Apr, 2012 09:41 am
@hawkeye10,
Quote:

I was thinking just the other day that what we have here is two young men, in a very short chance interaction that went very wrong.

That statement right there is enough to show that a crime was likely committed. The level of responsibility has yet to be determined.
Bouncers have been charged with crimes by throwing someone out on their head. Zimmerman was or should have been aware that his actions could have led to results where someone was harmed. His failure to control his actions at that point make him responsible.
OmSigDAVID
 
  -1  
Reply Sat 14 Apr, 2012 11:00 am
@parados,
parados wrote:

Quote:

I was thinking just the other day that what we have here is two young men, in a very short chance interaction that went very wrong.

That statement right there is enough to show that a crime was likely committed. The level of responsibility has yet to be determined.
Bouncers have been charged with crimes by throwing someone out on their head. Zimmerman was or should have been aware that his actions could have led to results where someone was harmed. His failure to control his actions at that point make him responsible.
Mr. Z 's actions were fine, admirable & noble,
if he were acting in self defense, while he was watching his naborhood for burglary.





David
Ragman
 
  3  
Reply Sat 14 Apr, 2012 11:05 am
@OmSigDAVID,
Quote:
"... if he were acting in self defense, while he was watching his naborhood for burglary."


IF?

Let's get real!

Where is the evidence or proof of any criminality on Trayvon's part? Was he on the premises of any home with burglary tools? No evidence of any criminality whatsoever.

Had Zimmerman never bothered Trayvon on his walk home from the store, the neighborhood (and the world) would have been a far better place.

Where is the sympathy and your grief for Trayvon's parents?

He (Zimmerman) protected no one from anything. And, he needed no protection from a skinny, unarmed 17-yr-old kid who was most likely anywhere from 80-100 lbs less than him.

David, please meet reality and shake hands.
RABEL222
 
  1  
Reply Sat 14 Apr, 2012 11:33 am
@hawkeye10,
Not if you are able to understand what you read.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 04/19/2024 at 09:17:39