Page 9 of 36 FirstFirst ... 567891011121319 ... LastLast
Results 97 to 108 of 432
  1. #97
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Houston, TX Y'all
    Posts
    23,247

    Re: George Zimmerman Trial



    Quote Originally Posted by NCRAVEN View Post
    Anyone watching this today?!?!?

    The State's witness testifying about DNA has basically said that Zimmerman's DNA from his blood was everywhere, or at least of the stains tested on Martin's shirt and Zimmerman's a lot were from Zimmerman.

    I heard a CNN commentator at lunch say brinigng this witness on if it were a boxing match I'd think they were throwing in the towel.
    So much for Zimmerman's wounds being "insignificant"
    WARNING: This post may contain material offensive to those who lack wit, humor, common sense and/or supporting factual or anecdotal evidence. All statements and assertions contained herein may be subject to literary devices not limited to: irony, metaphor, allusion and dripping sarcasm.




  2. #98

    Re: George Zimmerman Trial

    Quote Originally Posted by NCRAVEN View Post
    Anyone watching this today?!?!?

    The State's witness testifying about DNA has basically said that Zimmerman's DNA from his blood was everywhere, or at least of the stains tested on Martin's shirt and Zimmerman's a lot were from Zimmerman.

    I heard a CNN commentator at lunch say brinigng this witness on if it were a boxing match I'd think they were throwing in the towel.
    I am not watching but I suspect they will argue that if Zimmerman was on his back there would be less of his blood on Martin than if Zimmerman were on top.

    There really isn't any way the law calls for a conviction here. And there never has been. Especially since they charged 2nd degree murder.

    The verdict will come down to whether the jurors follow the law, and unfortunately, plenty of juries do not (especially in political cases like this one). Heck, plenty of judges do not, in political cases.




  3. #99

    Re: George Zimmerman Trial

    Quote Originally Posted by Haloti92 View Post
    I am not watching but I suspect they will argue that if Zimmerman was on his back there would be less of his blood on Martin than if Zimmerman were on top.

    There really isn't any way the law calls for a conviction here. And there never has been. Especially since they charged 2nd degree mqurder.

    The verdict will come down to whether the jurors follow the law, and unfortunately, plenty of juries do not (especially in political cases like this one). Heck, plenty of judges do not, in political cases.
    Agreed on both counts. I missed the testimony but the thing about blood is it goes everywhere and obeys the laws of physics.
    -JAB




  4. #100

    Re: George Zimmerman Trial

    HR ill leave it up to you where you see this fit. Kind of a mix between stand your ground and this case and gun laws in general which youve supported texas but this is absolutely asinine in my opinion. Not saying its a reflection of all texas laws either but in this case, justice wasnt served.

    http://www.mysanantonio.com/default/...er-4581027.php

    murder for a theft? A theft that would have been a misdemeanor? A theft while also being within an illegal interaction? Theres so much going on at once. Feel free to move this to its own thread if it warrants it and happy 4th guys. America, fuck yeah!
    -JAB




  5. #101
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Houston, TX Y'all
    Posts
    23,247

    Re: George Zimmerman Trial

    Quote Originally Posted by JAB1985 View Post
    HR ill leave it up to you where you see this fit. Kind of a mix between stand your ground and this case and gun laws in general which youve supported texas but this is absolutely asinine in my opinion. Not saying its a reflection of all texas laws either but in this case, justice wasnt served.

    http://www.mysanantonio.com/default/...er-4581027.php

    murder for a theft? A theft that would have been a misdemeanor? A theft while also being within an illegal interaction? Theres so much going on at once. Feel free to move this to its own thread if it warrants it and happy 4th guys. America, fuck yeah!
    So you say this is "Kind of a mix between stand your ground and this case and gun laws in general which youve supported" but then immediately follow that comment up with "Not saying its a reflection of all texas laws either but in this case justice wasn't served". Seems like a contradiction since you aimed the question at me and I am the only Texas resident here, but in any event ....

    He was charged so obviously the prosecutor wanted this guy gone. I'm glad he was charged and had hoped he got thrown in jail for a long time. A jury felt otherwise.

    Jury nullification is happening everywhere and certainly Texas isn't immune. I fail to see though how a jury making a horribly poor decision is somehow a commentary or indictment on "Stand Your Ground" laws (it wasn't invoked here), The Castle Doctrine (which was invoked) or gun laws in general.
    WARNING: This post may contain material offensive to those who lack wit, humor, common sense and/or supporting factual or anecdotal evidence. All statements and assertions contained herein may be subject to literary devices not limited to: irony, metaphor, allusion and dripping sarcasm.




  6. #102
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Clayton,NC
    Posts
    7,356

    Re: George Zimmerman Trial

    Zimmerman's lawyer is good, damn good.

    That is all.
    We are all born ignorant, but one must work hard to remain stupid. - Benjamin Franklin




  7. #103

    Re: George Zimmerman Trial

    Quote Originally Posted by HoustonRaven View Post
    So you say this is "Kind of a mix between stand your ground and this case and gun laws in general which youve supported" but then immediately follow that comment up with "Not saying its a reflection of all texas laws either but in this case justice wasn't served". Seems like a contradiction since you aimed the question at me and I am the only Texas resident here, but in any event ....
    I dont see the contradiction in saying this law is dumb, but not allowing it to speak for all of them. It was aimed at you mostly due to other debates when youve pointed to Texas law as being the model for which we all should follow. More of a question whether you believe this to be included in that or if you feel there could be some changes in it to prevent incidences like this. Also why I said it can be linked to this case, which many of the articles i read did and cited "stand your ground" or moved to the Guns thread if you saw fit.

    He was charged so obviously the prosecutor wanted this guy gone. I'm glad he was charged and had hoped he got thrown in jail for a long time. A jury felt otherwise.

    Jury nullification is happening everywhere and certainly Texas isn't immune. I fail to see though how a jury making a horribly poor decision is somehow a commentary or indictment on "Stand Your Ground" laws (it wasn't invoked here), The Castle Doctrine (which was invoked) or gun laws in general.
    I think theres a link between the two, so im not sure you can say its one and not the other fully. He "stood his ground" while protecting his "property". Regardless, the way the laws get interpreted or used is exactly why its an indictment, especially when saying jury nullification is the reason because a trend in those typically leads to changes in the law, right? Going forward its likely this case gets used to defend what is perceived property vs what is actual property. the law now covers the previous whether that was intent or not. Personally I think its just too broad of a spectrum and opens up a can of worms which the below quotes support.

    People often go free under "stand your ground" in cases that seem to make a mockery of what lawmakers intended. One man killed two unarmed people and walked out of jail. Another shot a man as he lay on the ground. Others went free after shooting their victims in the back. In nearly a third of the cases the Times analyzed, defendants initiated the fight, shot an unarmed person or pursued their victim — and still went free.

    Similar cases can have opposite outcomes. Depending on who decided their cases, some drug dealers claiming self-defense have gone to prison while others have been set free. The same holds true for killers who left a fight, only to arm themselves and return. Shoot someone from your doorway? Fire on a fleeing burglar? Your case can swing on different interpretations of the law by prosecutors, judge or jury.
    -JAB




  8. #104
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Houston, TX Y'all
    Posts
    23,247

    Re: George Zimmerman Trial

    Quote Originally Posted by JAB1985 View Post
    I dont see the contradiction in saying this law is dumb, but not allowing it to speak for all of them. It was aimed at you mostly due to other debates when youve pointed to Texas law as being the model for which we all should follow. More of a question whether you believe this to be included in that or if you feel there could be some changes in it to prevent incidences like this. Also why I said it can be linked to this case, which many of the articles i read did and cited "stand your ground" or moved to the Guns thread if you saw fit.
    The location of your post is fine ....

    Where have I ever made proclamations about Texas' "Stand Your Ground" laws? I may have pointed out we have them, but I am not aware I've ever given an opinion one way or the other. Gun laws? Yes.

    Like all new laws, they require a tweaking. Does our law need to be tweaked simply because some moron used it as a defense and a jury bought it? No. There have been numerous convictions here where people used the law as an affirmative defense and are now sitting in prison. Kind of like this case right here.

    Quote Originally Posted by JAB1985 View Post
    I think theres a link between the two, so im not sure you can say its one and not the other fully. He "stood his ground" while protecting his "property".
    You've fallen into the trap of applying dictionary definitions to a legal term. And in the case you sighted, Stand Your Ground is not what was at issue. The issue was a part of the Castle Doctrine where a person can employe deadly force if a felony is being committed or property is being stolen.

    Stand Your Ground laws is simply a moniker for the concept of not having a duty to retreat before employing deadly force. Meaning, if someone broke into your home, you have a duty to retreat to a safer part of your home before you may kill the intruder. If on the street, you'd have to try and escape your attacker. TX has a caveat in the law, enacted in 2008, that you cannot claim this defense if you're in the commission of a crime. Clearly, the jury in the case you cited ignored that caveat.

    Quote Originally Posted by JAB1985 View Post
    Regardless, the way the laws get interpreted or used is exactly why its an indictment, especially when saying jury nullification is the reason because a trend in those typically leads to changes in the law, right?
    Jury's do stupid things all the time so, no, their decisions rarely lead to changes in law. My wife and I were over a friends house last night and she's a prosecutor in nearby Ft. Bend County. She can run off a list of a hundred or so slam dunk cases where the jury simply ruled the other way. We talked about this case and the Zimmerman case and each time she said "You never really know".

    Jury nullification is simply not an indicator that the law is bad.

    Quote Originally Posted by JAB1985 View Post
    Going forward its likely this case gets used to defend what is perceived property vs what is actual property. the law now covers the previous whether that was intent or not. Personally I think its just too broad of a spectrum and opens up a can of worms which the below quotes support.
    "Perceived property"? It was his money. I am not defending this doucebag, but there's no issue with if the money was his or not.

    And citing a news piece from FL a year ago is not an indictment on Texas' law or "Stand Your Ground" laws in general. FL though, it would seem, may need to do a little tweaking.
    Last edited by HoustonRaven; 07-08-2013 at 09:29 AM.
    WARNING: This post may contain material offensive to those who lack wit, humor, common sense and/or supporting factual or anecdotal evidence. All statements and assertions contained herein may be subject to literary devices not limited to: irony, metaphor, allusion and dripping sarcasm.




  9. #105

    Re: George Zimmerman Trial

    Quote Originally Posted by HoustonRaven View Post
    Where have I ever made proclamations about Texas' "Stand Your Ground" laws? I may have pointed out we have them, but I am not aware I've ever given an opinion one way or the other. Gun laws? Yes.
    fair enough. i may have wrongfully grouped this with those gun laws, which id agree ownership vs use is different.

    "Perceived property"? It was his money. I am not defending this doucebag, but there's no issue with if the money was his or not.
    if youre going with that assumption you must also be assuming that the girl was a prostitute who took the money without service rendered and not an escort. If you assume she was just an escort like her ad and actions suggested, that means a legal transaction took place and completed making the money hers. His "perceived property" because by her account the money was rightfully and legally hers in that instance, even if it was a so called "scam" knowing what guys searching Craigslist ads typically are after.

    And citing a news piece from FL a year ago is not an indictment on Texas' law or "Stand Your Ground" laws in general. FL though, it would seem, may need to do a little tweaking.
    it was supporting my opinion that the law, in general, can be interpreted different ways and is causing it to be used outside intent.
    -JAB




  10. #106
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Houston, TX Y'all
    Posts
    23,247

    Re: George Zimmerman Trial

    I was listening to the trial via CNN's station on Sirius XM yesterday and the defense expert pathologist was doing a fantastic job of going point by point poking holes in the prosecutions case.

    Wish I had caught the cross examination. I heard it was a good one.
    WARNING: This post may contain material offensive to those who lack wit, humor, common sense and/or supporting factual or anecdotal evidence. All statements and assertions contained herein may be subject to literary devices not limited to: irony, metaphor, allusion and dripping sarcasm.




  11. #107
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Clayton,NC
    Posts
    7,356

    Re: George Zimmerman Trial

    I didn't hear all of the cross either., But from what I heard and the redirect it seemed liked the whole thing has gone like most of the case has gone.

    Defense: "Is this what happened?"
    Witness: "Most likely"
    Prosecution: "Is it possible this could have happened?"
    Witness: "Possibly"
    Defense" It's possible, but not likely"
    Witness: "Correct"
    We are all born ignorant, but one must work hard to remain stupid. - Benjamin Franklin




  12. #108

    Re: George Zimmerman Trial

    so whats the over/under on the Jury's deliberation? 1.5 hours?
    -JAB




Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Russell Street Report Website Design by D3Corp Ocean City Maryland