Bin der, dun dat---The Running Man
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 ...
“testosterone poisoning”
Was reading along trying to figure out where you were coming from until I saw this.
They get scared and combative when challenged.
Civility has always worked for Limbaugh.
Me too. But as a woman who's had way too much contact with other women in my lifetime, I do have some serious doubts that they will. I have a huge fear that they will convict based on emotions, rather than acquit based on facts. This forum seems to be male-dominated to me, so we can't guess what this all-female jury will do based on how patently obvious the truth is to us. Sadly, most of the women I know are more driven by emotion than logic. And that includes both conservative and liberal, feminist and traditional, well-educated and ignorant, even intelligent and stupid! I wish I could have more faith in my sex, but I can't.
True, but you cannot, as I understand it, claim self-defense and walk, as the SYG law allows.
You can (and should) be charged with something less than first-degree murder, possibly involuntary manslaughter.
I hope you are all giving what GZ really needs: financial support at this site:
http://www.gzdefensefund.com/donate/
I have given twice on my limited income, hope to give more.
Even if he is acquitted, who is ever going to hire him? Where is he going to get the money for bodyguards 24/7?
What you say is false. A person can start a fight with force of violence. They are guilty of a crime, yes, but they don't forfeit the right to save their own hide if the other person escalates it to a fight to the death.
The felony provision has to be a felony independent of the fight. There is a ton of case law on that point.
-- Otherwise, if a perp attempted to mug an innocent citizen, then won the ensuing gun fight, he could claim self-defense and walk. --
That is false too. The person who initiates force (or threatens force) is a criminal, period. The mugger does not get off.
There will be riots whether or not he is convicted. If he not convicted, they will “celebrate” in the streets. It will happen and we the taxpayers will get the bill. How many will be killed?? How many will be arrested. I have the feeling there will be a stand down notification on the rioters. Don’t want to get any police officers hurt./s
Which is exactly what I said in the first case. Assault is a felony, too. If what you say is true, muggers can't claim self-defense, but just plain old attackers (rapists) can.
My God I cannot stand that wack job. Show me one shred of evidence GZ was the aggressor Nancy. Show me one iota of evidence. If he is the aggressor, than anyone who drives or walks down the street is an aggressor.
776.041 Use of force by aggressor.—The justification described in the preceding sections of this chapter is not available to a person who:
(1) Is attempting to commit, committing, or escaping after the commission of, a forcible felony; or
(2) Initially provokes the use of force against himself or herself, unless:
(a) Such force is so great that the person reasonably believes that he or she is in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm and that he or she has exhausted every reasonable means to escape such danger other than the use of force which is likely to cause death or great bodily harm to the assailant; or
(b) In good faith, the person withdraws from physical contact with the assailant and indicates clearly to the assailant that he or she desires to withdraw and terminate the use of force, but the assailant continues or resumes the use of force.
IOW, if you started the fight, the “duty to retreat” pops back up.
I don’t know, but I will bet every last cent I have that if GZ is found guilty Obama without a single solitary shred of doubt will say “Justice has been served.”
Depends how you define “aggressor.”
They are defining it as Z following M down the street and then the sidewalk. That if he had just driven on past none of this would have happened. Which is indisputably true.
I think a reasonable person defines “aggression” as something more than following someone or even approaching and questioning them.
Bin der, dun dat---The Running Man
The idiots are coming out of the woodwork:
Trayvon Martin case shouldn’t be race-based
http://www.frostillustrated.com/2013/trayvon-martin-case-shouldnt-be-race-based/
What you said is that starting a fight forfeits the right to self defense. That is false. Pay particular attention to all that follows the bolded "unless" in the statute.
FS 776.041 - Use of Force by Aggressor
776.041 Use of force by aggressor.If a mugger threatens force, but not so much that it creates a reasonable fear of serious injury or worse, and you draw a gun, you have escalated. Chances of a mugger uses less than deadly force as a threat is slim, but the legal principle on use of force is driven by the downside risk posed by the threat or use of force.The justification described in the preceding sections of this chapter is not available to a person who:
(1) Is attempting to commit, committing, or escaping after the commission of, a forcible felony; or
(2) Initially provokes the use of force against himself or herself, unless:
(a) Such force is so great that the person reasonably believes that he or she is in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm and that he or she has exhausted every reasonable means to escape such danger other than the use of force which is likely to cause death or great bodily harm to the assailant; or
(b) In good faith, the person withdraws from physical contact with the assailant and indicates clearly to the assailant that he or she desires to withdraw and terminate the use of force, but the assailant continues or resumes the use of force.
Threat or commission of rape is considered a serious harm, and can be met with deadly force.
My remark about the felony having to be independent of the confrontation that includes threat or use of force applies to 776.041(1). Lots of people conflate 776.041(1) with the action of violence itself, but as I said, there is a ton of Florida case law on that point.
I agree with that. The law penalizes aggression, and it penalizes escalation.
I really, truly hope that police departments in cities with significant poor black populations are getting ready.
I suspect those most at risk have already had poor black riots of 100-300 in size, though not described as such by the authorities or media.
Such riots are also dependent on a week-kneed liberal city government, that first orders the police to use kid gloves, before panicking and ordering a harsh police response.
“The law recognizes your right to defend your life. Your right to defend your “honor” or pride is less recognized.”
In the end that’s what this case is all about. GZ “dissed” TM by asking him WTF he was doing and TM took exception and thought he could give a cracker a good beat down at little risk.
Cops go door-to-door in Trayvon town
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/3038090/posts
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.