patrick.net

that may be why that stand ground law was never mentioned in the trial ... only mentioned by the lefty racebaitors in DC and mass media. maybe?

also, nobody had to tell GZ to take an active roll in the public safety of his area, so why should he listen to someone sitting safely at their desk, where there is no crime issue, if they suggest he just sits back and takes it some more? Those in control don't like the idea of individual liberty.

thunderlips11 says

No, It's Stalking.

nope. stalking has a check list like sexual herrassment does.

thunderlips11 says

No, It's Stalking. Also, a condo patrol is not a LEO. He was also told to stay away. When you follow somebody, it's not stand your ground.

If somebody jumps me in the park and I blast them, it's "SYG".

If *I* follow a shady looking character around the park (or development or whatever) and then start barking questions at him, and then he punches me, then I shoot him, that is not standing ground.

Nothing GZ did was considered stalking. Following someone for 5 minutes while on the phone with a NEN operator does not qualify. The prosecutors did not use the word 'stalking' once during GZ's m2 trial. People do not call to have the police show up right before committing murder.

A NEN or 911 operator can't issue a legal command, over the phone or otherwise. A police officer can't issue a legal command over the phone, as the person on the other end has no way to verify the police officers status.

GZ did not employ a SYG defense. SYG was only mentioned in passing when discussing GZ's school classes.

You are wrong in both scenarios you list. It is self defense in both of them.

foxmannumber1 says

GZ did not employ a SYG defense. SYG was only mentioned in passing when
discussing GZ's school classes.

The jurors did though, as it was admitted in an interview of a juror by Anderson Cooper. And, she admitted that it was based upon GZ's words/statements in a police interview that should never been admissable because his words weren't subject to verification/cross examination.

Who's worse, the dumbest of FL on the jury, or the incompetent prosecutor the same people elected?

Bap33 says

Michael Madison .... what now racebaitors?

google Michael Madison bodies

COOPER: Because of the two options you had, second degree murder or manslaughter, you felt neither applied?

JUROR: Right. Because of the heat of the moment and the Stand Your Ground. He had a right to defend himself. If he felt threatened that his life was going to be taken away from him or he was going to have bodily harm, he had a right.

The juror is confusing SYG and self defense. There is no SYG when you're pinned beneath someone who is punching you and slamming your head into the concrete.

I'm sure GZ was properly mirandized. Anything he said before then or after does not need to be "verified" or "cross examined" before it can be considered evidence by a jury. GZ said plenty during multiple police interviews and chose not to take the stand during his trial. It's was his right to do both of those things.

I don't think the jury was dumb. I think they made the correct choice. TM was largely responsible for this own death.

This is America, ghetto black people will scream "racism" any opportunity they get. Not because it applies, but because their racist leaders tell them it is. If Al Sharpton tells poor blacks to jump, they do. Herd mentality.

foxmannumber1 says

I'm sure GZ was properly mirandized. Anything he said before then or after
does not need to be "verified" or "cross examined" before it can be considered
evidence by a jury.

I don't think the jury was dumb. I think they made the correct choice. TM was
largely responsible for this own death.

Really, "Mirandized"????? "Any statement can and will be used against you", remember that from watching L A LAw???? To bad that the show couldn't have taught you some real info.

It's heresay that's not subject to verification/cross examination, and if the prosecutor were even remotely bright, wouldn't allowed any of his interview statements to have been entered. You have the right to not incriminate yourself, but not to advance your theory of defense. That's why the burden of proof is on the state/prosecutor.

But, it's Florida...............the land of paranoid and lazy boomers. Now they'll NEVER come out after dark(as if they did anyway).

FortWayne says

This is America, ghetto black people will scream "racism" any opportunity
they get. Not because it applies, but because their racist leaders tell them it
is. If Al Sharpton tells poor blacks to jump, they do. Herd mentality.

Seriously, yea, keep running with that motto, because it's worked so well in the past. Yawnnnnnnnn

You would think for as much ka-ching that the rwnj's pay Frank Luntz, that he would have come up with some new material for you dittoheads to repeat by now.

This says upisdown is a liar and a fraud:

http://www.google.com/search?q=Michael+Madison&sourceid=ie7&rls=com.microsoft:en-us:IE-SearchBox&ie=&oe=

Bap33 says

This says upisdown is a liar and a fraud:

Yawnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnn, what's next, that my pants are too short?

I thought you wore dresses, my bad.

I really am trolling like a mo-fo to get someone from your political view to read and respond to that crime ... because your side has some explaining to do

Bap33 says

I really am trolling like a mo-fo to get someone from your political view to
read and respond to that crime ... because your side has some explaining to
do

No shit. And apparently to you, bad attention is still attention.

lol, you're just sooooooo "misunderstood".

upisdown says

It's heresay that's not subject to verification/cross examination, and if the prosecutor were even remotely bright, wouldn't allowed any of his interview statements to have been entered. You have the right to not incriminate yourself, but not to advance your theory of defense. That's why the burden of proof is on the state/prosecutor.

You heard GZ say all those things on the recordings of the interviews. He was a direct witness and participant to the events. That is not 'heresay'.

I think all of GZ's statements he made to police that night, the subsequent police interview and even the Sean Hannity interview were admissible as evidence during his recent m2 trial. I'm not sure what you mean by 'verified'. The prosecution has no right to "cross examine" any previous statement of a defendant before arrest.

Police question people all the time and use it as evidence before charging them. Your statements are highly flawed.

robertoaribas says

so in this post you insinuate that black people are too stupid to think for themselves... because they are black I guess.

And yet you are bothered when people point out you are a racist?

I'm too old to be bothered by any insults. I say it like I see it, whatever their reasons for being sheep I don't care. Smart blacks aren't protesting, it's the poor welfare cases running around protesting.

foxmannumber1 says

I think all of GZ's statements he made to police that night, the subsequent
police interview and even the Sean Hannity interview were admissible as evidence
during his recent m2 trial. I'm not sure what you mean by 'verified'. The
prosecution has no right to "cross examine" any previous statement of a
defendant before arrest.

Police question people all the time and use it as evidence before charging
them. Your statements are highly flawed.

Sure, they are evidence to see if he may incriminate himself, or even perjure himself.
But, he can make ANY claim, such as; Ahnold S likes to shove large carrots up his ass.
That's a statement, and an unprovable statement also. And, if he said that in a recorded interview with the police, there's no way he can be questioned, or cross examined because it's after the fact. If GZ doesn't testify, there's absolutely NO way to challenge his statements, or refute them.
Any half-assed prosecutor(apparently not) wouldn't allow his interview/statements to be admitted into the trial because of that. And because of her total(or intentional?) incompetence, the jury was allowed to hear those ststements, and took them as FACT, according to the juror that Anderson Cooper interviewed.

I don't think you understand what heresay is or know how trials work.

The police interviews being in trial evidence is routine and lawful, as is GZ choosing not to testify. No one except you is arguing that.

foxmannumber1 says

I don't think you understand what heresay is or know how trials work.

The police interviews being in trial evidence is routine and lawful, as is GZ
choosing not to testify. No one except you is arguing that.

lol, THAT'S it, I'm clueless.

Interviews ascertain evidence, incrimination of oneself/confessions of any extent, and elements of a crime. Sure, they will be shown in entirety if there's a confession, basically to prove that it was not given illegally or under duress, promises of ?, etc.

Mark D says

meth is a very crazy drug. makes you extremely paranoia and stop talking it causes weight gain, even when in prison.

Which is why everyone should be so afraid of the 15+ million young americans that your worthless "doctors" have prescribed to be addicted to adderral

I never said clueless.

Using your horribly flawed logic, the trial and evidence introduction would go like this.

1. Prosecutor puts interviews into evidence.
2. Prosecutor points out inconsistencies between GZ's story in said interviews and physical evidence attempting to bolster its case. This would show that GZ is a liar with something to hide.
3. GZ chooses not to testify at the very end of the trial.
4. Prosecutor wants to throw out evidence they submitted because GZ chose not to testify right at the very end of the trial.

It doesn't make sense.

We don't know who started the fight, that is, who threw the first punch. Could have been Zimmerman, although it did not seem to land, could have been Trayvon. Trayvon did not testify.

It is beyond a reasonable doubt that Trayvon was on top of ZImmerman, preventing his escape, and likely bashing his head into the ground. That was an unfortunate thing to do for Trayvon. African Americans usually ignore this, or if they address it, either blame Zimmerman, or regard this as appropriate behavior when you are being followed.

Unfortunate all the way around.

foxmannumber1 says

The police interviews being in trial evidence is routine and lawful, as is GZ
choosing not to testify. No one except you is arguing that.

My point is, and I really think that you're willfully playing dumb so as to somehow not prove it, is that GZ's statements were allowed to be considered AS FACT, and did not get a chance to be refuted OR challenged BECAUSE he chose not to testify.
Again, any competent prosecutor wouldn't allow them to be admitted because SHE could not challenge them as to their truthfulness, and details such as time or a location.

The jurors were instructed to use common sense to determine if the story, as well as any other evidence, was true or false. They were never told that the interviews were facts in their instructions.

foxmannumber1 says

1. Prosecutor puts interviews into evidence.

Alright then. Gz says in the interview:
TM said he was going to rape me and them kill me(not really likely or believable, but maybe if GZ was a female). So, as a prosecutor, your going to allow that STATEMENT to be admitted into the trial as evidence, where it will be assumed to be a fact, and NEVER once be allowed to challenge the truthfullness of it or anything else about that statement if GZ never testifies.
Just why would you allow that to be admitted, especially considering the burden of proof is on you (or the state) to prove your allegation/s that GZ committed the crime/s that you claimed/charged him with, and that there was enough probable cause to do that?

Wouldn't that just be beyond fucking stupid???

foxmannumber1 says

The jurors were instructed to use common sense to determine if the story, as
well as any other evidence, was true or false. They were never told that the
interviews were facts in their instructions.

By who??? The tooth fairy???? No judge, especially in a high profile case as this one was, would tell them to use common sense over a very specifically worded staute, as the verdict would be overturned very easily.

The elements of a crime are VERY specific, and those elements are what the jury uses to consider whther he committed the crime he was charged with, along with all the supporting evidence that has been to be proven factual or qualified.

FortWayne says

it's the poor welfare cases running around protesting.

You mean being bussed in by Liberal White based PACs.

In the good ole days, these assholes were called Agitators.
Until that aptly suitable word for what is going on, was hijacked and made to mean that the user of the word is a racist.

CaptainShuddup says

FortWayne says

it's the poor welfare cases running around protesting.

You mean being bussed in by Liberal White based PACs.

In the good ole days, these assholes were called Agitators.

Until that aptly suitable word for what is going on, was hijacked and made to mean that the user of the word is a racist.

Maybe they are part of Organizing for America or Acorn. Not like our president is above these kinds of Chicago style tactics. That's right up his alley.

CaptainShuddup says

FortWayne says

it's the poor welfare cases running around protesting.

You mean being bussed in by Liberal White based PACs.

In SFBA, especially Oakland, we see peaceful protests disrupted by mostly white anarchists who start smashing windows. They wear masks and gloves but you can see their necks and wrists on the news video. Local people refer vaguely to people from outside of town etc., by which they mean anarchists who ride the freights up and down the coast. Anarchists grab opportunities to launch false flag attacks that they imagine will 'bring down the system,' even attacking public transit that is usually a liberal favorite. Most of the local protesters are peaceful and show no interest in turning their neighborhood into a reenactment of the 1960s Detroit riots, but damage does occur due to a small % taking advantage of the crowd.

BTW, possibly the most cogent, dispassionate analysis of "stand your ground" continues to be this 2012 review. The statute is basically procedural, not substantive, i.e. it drove the fact that GZ wasn't immediately arrested but it didn't change the outcome.

The President in his comments referred to the self-defense vs duty to retreat issue, which is a separate issue that people and states have disagreed about for centuries. He's right that there should be a duty to retreat if possible, which Florida has; the jury found reasonable doubt as to whether safe retreat was possible. I don't know if a different prosecutor might persuade a different jury to reach a different conclusion: this particular prosecution seemed to overplay its hand going for maximum charges and rhetoric, with the court adding the possibility of lesser charges only after the original case became doubtful, so a more modest prosecution on federal charges might do better; either way, the facts seem to merit a civil case to prevent GZ from profiting off a book deal or movie deal.

foxmannumber1 says

Other obvious facts of this case being TM beat up people and did illegal drugs. GZ beat up no one and did not do illegal drugs.

Lies.

APOCALYPSEFUCK is Shostakovich says

Zimfuck had to open up on Martin. In fact, he would have been acting rationally if he just gunned down Martin from his car while driving by because he had no way to know that Martin didn't have an AK-47 under his coat machined for full-auto and, at any instant, could pull it out and shred him.

Clearly this is correct. Anyone who denies it in an immoral and unethical psychopath (aka a liberal)

upisdown says

By who??? The tooth fairy???? No judge, especially in a high profile case as this one was, would tell them to use common sense over a very specifically worded staute, as the verdict would be overturned very easily.

From http://www.scribd.com/doc/153354467/George-Zimmerman-Trial-Final-Jury-Instructions

WEIGHING THE EVIDENCE

It is up to you to decide what evidence is reliable. You should use your common sense in deciding which is the best evidence, and which evidence should not be relied upon in considering your verdict. You may find some of the evidence not reliable, or less reliable than other evidence.

The m2 murder trial is a case of historic fact. Anyone with an internet connection can look up these facts within seconds. You should use all these resources if you wish to give an informed opinion.

Obama has fallen out of favor with me over the last few months, and I haven't really been paying much attention to him any more....but a friend did point out Obama's recent comments on the Trayvon Martin case, and I took the time to listen.

I actually thought Obama did a good job in providing a pretty balanced take on the situation, and particularly the way he put the case into context for black Americans. He gets good marks from me on this one...but I couldn't help but think that the people who need to hear it the most are unlikely to.

upisdown says

TM said he was going to rape me and them kill me(not really likely or believable, but maybe if GZ was a female). So, as a prosecutor, your going to allow that STATEMENT to be admitted into the trial as evidence, where it will be assumed to be a fact, and NEVER once be allowed to challenge the truthfullness of it or anything else about that statement if GZ never testifies.

In your hypothetical scenario, the prosecutor would present that evidence that GZ was lying and attempting to hide something. The police questioned everything GZ said the day of the interview. It's GZ's right to give an interview to the police and it's GZ right not to testify during his trial without any impact on his guilty or innocence.

No prosecutor ever would not introduce a legal police interview into evidence. The defense would have a field day with that omission, especially if it made the suspect appear innocent.

I don't see why you're still standing by this.

foxmannumber1 says

The m2 murder trial is a case of historic fact. Anyone with an internet
connection can look up these facts within seconds. You should use all these
resources if you wish to give an informed opinion.

She's set herself up for dis. action as the judge alone interprets the law, not any member of the jury. Shit, she might have well of told them to ignore the letter of the law, and go with what they think the spirit of the law is.

But, it is Florida.

It's routine to tell the jurors to use their own common sense in weighing evidence. If you read the other parts of the jury instructions, she does spell out the very specific statues that had to be met in order find GZ guilty.

Again, I don't know why you're questioning something that happens literally hundreds of times a day in this country's legal system.

foxmannumber1 says

In your hypothetical scenario, the prosecutor would present that evidence that
GZ was lying and attempting to hide something.

Hypothetical??? WTF????? The interviewed juror even mentioned his statement SPECIFICALLY during her interview.

I don't know why(actually I do....because playing dumb isn't admitting that you're wrong AND it drives up the post count)you continually take the idiotic stance that you have up to this point. But, your vast court/case experience must apparently trump mine in some altered version of the universe.

foxmannumber1 says

Again, I don't know why you're questioning something that happens literally
hundreds of times a day in this country's legal system.

Prove it.

LOL, if you can.

For once, maybe you shithouse lawyers could provide some proof, ANY PROOF. You never will, mainly because it was never your intent to begin with, as you're trying to instigate a reaction, any reaction, from or someone else. Go back to loading up the Yahoo comment section for fun/work.

I don't believe you can follow a conversation well. GZ never mentioned 'rape' at all during any interview.

The short answer is all legal police interviews are entered into evidence at court. Content of said interview doesn't matter. You are wrong if you think otherwise.

Let's move on.