Posted on 07/02/2013 1:42:13 PM PDT by 2ndDivisionVet
“It’s dangerous for America the way were doing this as a trial in the media with the whole nation as jury.” This observation about the trial of George Zimmerman for the murder of Florida teen Trayvon Martin in 2012 by MSNBC host Touré was as true when he made it, in March of last year, as it is today. Too few, it seems, have taken his advice to heart.
Since the Zimmerman trial began, the instant analysis of the nationally televised case – meriting near wall-to-wall coverage on the cable news outlets – has not been favorable to the prosecution. State witness after state witness has had their credibility impugned or introduced reasonable doubt that Zimmerman’s actions may not meet the threshold necessary to convict him for second degree murder. And as the state’s case against Zimmerman grows thinner, the tone of those in the media who have invested a significant portion of the last 16 months in an effort to indict him in the court of public opinion has grown more caustic.
This phenomenon began on June 28 after the prosecution’s star witness and Martin’s friend, Rachel Jeantel, took the stand to testify that she was on the phone with the deceased teen when fatal fight with Zimmerman began.
Her testimony was nothing short of a disaster for the prosecution. She was combative, she was reprimanded for being contemptuous of the proceedings, she admitted to reversing assertions made in deposition, and she introduced the fact that Martin had racially profiled Zimmerman (disclosing that Martin had used the slur “cracker” to describe him).
It was then that the media commentators invested in Zimmerman’s guilt went on the defense. MSNBC contributor Goldie Taylor – one of the first media commentators to don a hooded sweatshirt to protest Martin’s unnecessary murder....
(Excerpt) Read more at mediaite.com ...
The 911 operator asked about Martin’s race.
Perhaps.
But also there will be riots if he is found guilty. All those St Skittles wanna-be’s will take the guilty verdict as a green light to riot, attack and kill “crackers” because they can get away with it, that White people have been told by the court they can't defend their life.
All part of the communists Party takeover of America. The MSM are communists sympathizers and will lie and distort to support the agenda.
In the case you cite the first guy did not precipitate a fight, the second guy did. As I assume a large number of witnesses would be able to verify.
But if you’ve ever seen a bar brawl escalate, I’m sure you will agree it is often difficult to determine “who started it,” in fact it is very often a joint effort.
In such a case the law would deny self-defense to both parties, regardless of which one survived. You shouldn’t get to walk away from a charge of assault with a deadly weapon simply because you succeed in killing your opponent as opposed to merely wounding him.
On an unrelated note, if you’re in the market for a big-screen TV you might want to go ahead and buy it now, they are about to be out of stock.
Brave new world of Dem’s made up words.
For purposes of Barrycare, you’re now a kid till age 26,too.
‘Marriage’ means whatever you want now as well.
I don't believe the State has presented any such evidence have they?
Without them trying to present that claim, why would you even mention it as a possibility here?
BTW, the type of case you describe is exactly the reason common law prescribed a “duty to retreat,” to avoid the scenario where testosterone poisoning prevents either party from backing away and de-escalating the situation.
The law recognizes your right to defend your life. Your right to defend your “honor” or pride is less recognized.
KOPEL: Debunking the ‘stand your ground’ myth
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2867469/posts
you are correct.
Michael Savage is arrogant, narrow minded, and abusive to callers who disagree with him. I gave up on him long ago and I’m getting very tired of Mark Levin’s rude behavior.
Brilliant! And at the end of the trial, if the contestant/defendant is found innocent, he gets $1Million. If he’s found guilty, he gets televised execution.
My post was intended to point out that there are scenarios where losing a fight does not authorize you to use lethal force.
I specifically stated that this does not appear to have applied to Zimmerman, since apparently even the state hasn't claimed it, as you say.
However, I'm not following the trial evidence very closely. Too busy.
Excellent!
DITTO. Freepers need to understand that, and many do not catch this fine point. Premise of the DA charge is if GZ did not follow TM, a whole chain of events would not happen resulting in gunplay. GZ only defense is he followed TM partly, and while returning to his SUV was confronted by an angry TM who turned, followed GZ back to his vehicle. Even at this point what GZ said back to an angry TM is important. If GZ did not answer TM angry confrontation with escalating words or manner he will be innocent. Why is the burden still on GZ? According to the DA GZ initiated the chain of events. If GZ can prove he broke the escalating chain of events that led to the fight and shooting, he will be innocent. Retreating back to the SUV is the first good step, responding to TM in a manner that indicated retreat and attempt to calm the situation will be the next step. Problem is only GZ survived to tell that portion of the story. MAJOR LESSON OF THE TM INCIDENT - If you want to carry a gun and play policeman, know the rules. Cops have a lower threshold they can shoot you. Even if they screw up, their buddies will cover it up. CCW do not have this luxury. Even if GZ wins he will face civil suits or the US gov can put him thru another trial on Civil Rights violations. Even if GZ wins the two trials, he will be financially bankrupt.
Ditto that. He has a habit of dissing even good callers. (Sorry, Mark, had to say it.)
it sounds like “rehabilitation” in the movie Idiocracy.
Very good summation, and I think all good points.
I usually read the synopsis of the day in the blog Legal Insurrection and leave it at that.
I lived on the South Side of Chicago during the LA Riots and I was out on the street as the news came out that evening that the police were acquitted.
People were not happy, but there was no spontaneous riot.
“If Zimmerman assaulted Martin, a felony, he cannot later claim self-defense if he is losing a fight he started himself. Self-defense cannot be claimed in commission of a felony.”
I’m pretty sure that you’re not under any obligation to allow yourself to be killed no matter what you did first if you’re not still an active threat.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.