27
   

The State of Florida vs George Zimmerman: The Trial

 
 
parados
 
  1  
Fri 5 Jul, 2013 11:27 am
@hawkeye10,
Quote:
but I demand that zimmerman be treated on the basis of his actions,

You just demand that his actions not be reviewed in a court or law. So in other words you demand he NOT be judged on his actions.
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Fri 5 Jul, 2013 11:33 am
@parados,
hawk now "demands." ROFLMAO His demands are worthless emanations of his ignorance. He lives in nether world where idiots believe they have the influence of their idiotic statements of a trial in this country (or any other).

Makes one wonder where they live or how they live in this world?
0 Replies
 
hawkeye10
 
  1  
Fri 5 Jul, 2013 01:02 pm
@parados,
parados wrote:

Quote:
but I demand that zimmerman be treated on the basis of his actions,

You just demand that his actions not be reviewed in a court or law. So in other words you demand he NOT be judged on his actions.

i demand that he be judged according to the law, no matter how fucked it is, because anything else is abuse of zimmerman and the rule of law
0 Replies
 
hawkeye10
 
  1  
Fri 5 Jul, 2013 01:06 pm
@parados,
parados wrote:

Quote:
I am just following your line of reasoning and showing
where it goes

Actually, you are following YOUR line of reasoning which went off the rails before it ever got started.
We don't put people in jail for irresponsibility. We do put them in jail when their irresponsibility ends up injuring or killing someone. But you didn't let your slippery slope argument stop there. You decided to double down by arguing that bullies aren't responsible for their actions. I suppose it means we have to absolve you of your stupid arguments that you aren't responsible enough to manufacture in a logical fashion.

according to the law martin died as a result of his own action, that being attacking zimmerman leaving him in fear of his life. now I think that zimmerman should need to prove that a reasonable man would fear for his life in the situation, I further think that he must prove that he had no ability to save his life with less than deadly force, but that is not what florida law says.
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Fri 5 Jul, 2013 01:12 pm
@hawkeye10,
It's funny how you lack logic when Zimmerman was told to stay in his car, and he's the one following Martin for no reason at all! All of Zimmerman's suspicion about Martin was only in his own brain - nowhere else! He's the one that followed Martin - with a gun in his possession.

Self-defense has never been determined in court; not yet.
hawkeye10
 
  2  
Fri 5 Jul, 2013 01:39 pm
@cicerone imposter,
as usual you are not paying attention, nobody needs to prove self defense, the state needs to prove that it was not, and they cant even begin to do that.
DrewDad
 
  2  
Fri 5 Jul, 2013 01:49 pm
@hawkeye10,
Based on that interpretation, all you need to do to murder someone in Florida is make sure there are no witnesses and then claim self defense.

"I swear, your honor, he had a pointed stick!"
cicerone imposter
 
  2  
Fri 5 Jul, 2013 02:03 pm
@DrewDad,
In this case, "your honor, he had a hoodie on!"
DrewDad
 
  2  
Fri 5 Jul, 2013 02:34 pm
@cicerone imposter,
"I felt threatened by his consumption of high-fructose corn syrup-laden candy!"
0 Replies
 
hawkeye10
 
  1  
Fri 5 Jul, 2013 03:14 pm
@DrewDad,
DrewDad wrote:

Based on that interpretation, all you need to do to murder someone in Florida is make sure there are no witnesses and then claim self defense.

"I swear, your honor, he had a pointed stick!"

and have no evidence which proves that you did not have fear in your heart. the law is ill advised, but it is the law that Florida must process Zimmerman with. to void the law to get the result that the mob wants would be a much bigger problem than this bad law.
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Fri 5 Jul, 2013 03:19 pm
@hawkeye10,
"Fear in your heart" cannot be measured by any third party person - especially YOU.
0 Replies
 
revelette
 
  2  
Fri 5 Jul, 2013 03:22 pm
I must have turned my eyes at the wrong time, did the judge rule of the defenses motion to acquit? I figured she must have as the defense has now started their case and they are now recessed.

As just an aside, that medical guy who did the autopsy was a hoot, not a very good witness for either side or even the court in general. However, Trayvon Martin's mother was a strong witness.
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Fri 5 Jul, 2013 03:27 pm
@revelette,
I agree; he was a waste of time to this trial.
0 Replies
 
Thomas
 
  1  
Fri 5 Jul, 2013 03:27 pm
@firefly,
firefly wrote:
And the state has put forth evidence to both back up their charges, and to raise doubts about his credibility.

That's quite likely true. But at the end of the trial, that won't be enough. The question then will be: Has the state refuted every reasonable hypothesis except Zimmerman's guilt beyond all reasonable doubt? I don't believe it has, and I don't believe the defense's witnesses will bring it closer to refuting the other reasonable hpotheses that remain.
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Fri 5 Jul, 2013 03:30 pm
@Thomas,
We still don't know how the jurors have decided this case - thus far. The odds of 5/7 sounds pretty reasonable at this juncture; nobody really knows.

It will depend on how the jurors deliberate this case, and who the extroverts and introverts are.
Thomas
 
  1  
Fri 5 Jul, 2013 03:31 pm
@Rockhead,
Rockhead wrote:

Why was Trayvon Martin suspicious?

he was black...

I believe Zimmerman said in his 911 call that Martin appeared to be on drugs. And indeed, the doctor who did the autopsy testified today that Martin had THC in his blood. (THC is the active ingredient in Cannabis.)
Thomas
 
  1  
Fri 5 Jul, 2013 03:36 pm
@firefly,
firefly wrote:
Martin's mother is on the witness stand...


. . . and she is absolutely, positively certain that the yelling on the 911 tape came from her son. The trouble is, Zimmerman's mother and Zimmerman's uncle both stated the same thing just 30 minutes ago. All three are absolutely certain, but at least one of them is wrong. Talk about reasonable doubt!
DrewDad
 
  1  
Fri 5 Jul, 2013 03:37 pm
@hawkeye10,
hawkeye10 wrote:


and have no evidence which proves that you did not have fear in your heart.

Ah. I see. You have no idea what you're talking about, which explains why it sounds so stupid.

"Fear in your heart" is not the legal standard for self defense, fyi.
0 Replies
 
ossobuco
 
  1  
Fri 5 Jul, 2013 03:37 pm
@Thomas,
I would so hate for this whole thing to rest on that particular pinnacle.
0 Replies
 
revelette
 
  1  
Fri 5 Jul, 2013 03:38 pm
@Thomas,
It was a trace amount. Also the doctor first said it shouldn't have affected him that night, then changed his mind because he consulted someone else. We don't know the information he had that made him change his mind, so I don't give a lot of credence to any of it.
 

Related Topics

 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.15 seconds on 11/25/2024 at 03:53:07