Free Republic

I've read this several places, but here is what I don't understand about the claim that the IRS can only collect the fine by reducing a refund - if you owe taxes, can't they simply assign part of your payment to the fine, and then say you've come up short on your regular taxes, which they can collect?

Example: I complete my tax return, owing $500 in income tax plus my $95 Obamacare fine. I send a check for $500.

The IRS sends me a receipt letter stating:

$95 Obamacare fine: PAID
$405 Income Tax: $95 still due

There’s still a Miss America pageant?

Justice was not done in Sanford Florida yesterday.

*snip*

We’ll never know [what happened].

Both of these can't be true. If we can't know what happened, "not guilty" is the correct verdict, and people who keep wishing it were easier to send people to prison based on what "coulda happened" ought to think long and hard about how that would play out in the many thousands of trials that don't get the publicity of this one.

Chris Smith is a moron. “Stand your ground” was never at issue, never claimed and always totally irrelevant. This case was standard self-defense, pretty much the same as in any state.

“Can’t” sounded as though the defense was not allowed to, the way it was put. Have a blessed Sunday!

What the article said is: "Prosecutors don’t even have to acknowledge her absence, and the defense is not allowed to."

In other words, the prosecution need not explain why they did not call her. The defense is not allowed to talk about what witnesses the prosecution did not call.

The defense could call her, but why would they? She, by her own account, witnessed nothing.

I’m surprised to read a Horowitz column this ill-informed.

He mentions “stand your ground,” despite the fact that Florida’s “stand your ground” law has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with the case. He parrots the prosecution’s tiresome lines about superficial injuries, which is equally irrelevant to this or any other self-defense case. It is a simple, legal fact that lawful exercise of self-defense (in every state) requires no injury at all. If it did, you could only defend yourself against a gun by allowing yourself to first be shot. Think about that. He then lists out Zimmerman’s “lies,” taking each in the worst possible light (”the bushes or something” is not a lie at all, for example.)

Finally, he takes up Zimmerman’s interview on Hannity. Doing this interview was obviously idiotic, and certainly against his lawyer’s advice. Was his response that he had “no regret” creepy? No doubt. There is also little doubt that when facing serious legal jeopardy, as well as potential civil liability, he’d been advised by his lawyer not to admit any kind of wrongdoing. Zimmerman obviously does not have the media-savvy or communication skills to pull that off without looking creepy. That doesn’t make him guilty of a crime, it makes him guilty of terrible judgment in choosing to go on TV.

I’m pretty sure that by now he regrets that.

There is ample evidence that Trayvon Martin was not “guiltless of any crime,” as Horowitz says, unless I missed the part where aggravated, felonious assault is now legal. There has been eyewitness testimony to that. And you can’t theorize that Martin, having sustained no injuries at all, was defending himself, once you’ve dismissed Zimmerman’s injuries as “minor.” You can’t have it both ways.

A lot of things could have happened differently that night, and both men could have made other decisions that would have changed the result. It’s too bad Trayvon Martin is dead. I bet George Zimmerman replays it all in his head a hundred times a night, trying to make it come out differently - but that doesn’t mean he is guilty of a crime.

This case ought to be decided by the facts and the law, but I am afraid is more likely to be decided by Horowitz’s frightening standard that “somebody should pay a price.”

I’m getting tired of Republicans clicking their heels over Obamacare’s “collapse.” That was the plan all along. It isn’t like things will just go back to the way they were as the new system collapses - this will create an actual crisis, leading to Democrat cries for single payer as the only solution. The GOP, of course, will author and sponsor the Single Payer Act.

Apparently, Martin’s DNA was NOT found on Zimmerman’s gun, according to the prosecution. This bombshell was mentioned on Nancy Grace’s show, so you gotta consider the source.

That's hardly a bombshell. There is useful and probative DNA in maybe 1/3 of such cases, and the absence of it proves nothing. And it also was not first revealed at trial.

I wonder why there is not more commentary on the fact that no DNA was found on the trigger? I mean, that turns this shooting into quite a whodunnit! Right?

Officer Tim Smith's DNA was not identified on the weapon's slide, so apparently he lied on the stand about taking and clearing it!

I can't think of any reason for the prosecution to have put this DNA guy on the stand, except that they hoped the jury would be stupid enough not to understand there was nothing of any relevance to either side presented.

(Although, FWIW, the witness testified that they "could not exclude" Martin's DNA from the holster swabs...)

An unarmed George Zimmerman would, in all probability be a dead George Zimmerman.

Well...although it seems quite clear that Zimmerman acted in self-defense, and based on the facts of the case ought to be acquitted, in hindsight I don't think that's true.

He was off the concrete and onto the grass by the end of the fight, and the police arrived literally seconds after the shot was fired.

But that's all hindsight. He did have the gun, and it wasn't wrong for him to have it.

Manslaughter is automatically a “lesser included” charge. One of the hurdles for the prosecution is that they not only have to prove 2d degree (or manslaughter) beyond a reasonable doubt, they also have to prove (beyond a reasonable doubt) that it was not self-defense. In other words, if the jury believes Zimmerman acted in self-defense, they cannot convict of the lesser charges, either.

That is, if this case is decided based on the facts, which I still doubt it will be.

Exactly. And I don’t know what trial the “commentators” quoted were watching, because on cross, the firearms expert agreed with exactly those points, and also testified that this is a perfectly safe way to carry. The good news is that one of the jurors is a former concealed carry permit holder, so she probably understood this testimony.

Unfortunately, this case is still not likely to be decided based on the facts.

Well someone has to go?????

Or format change? "Hannity & Kelly"? "On the Record with Greta and Megyn"?

Thanks, yes, I agree I am summarizing in a way that removes nuance. Just trying to make the general point that it is possible to make physical contact without losing one’s right to self-defense.

You keep getting hung up on “following.” Even if there were videotape evidence that Zimmerman got out of his car and walked five paces behind Martin the whole time up until the fight that would be completely, legally, utterly irrelevant.

As for the verbal confrontation, even Jeantel (the “earwitness”) confirms that Martin initiated it.

Finally, while it’s true that nobody saw who threw the first punch, Zimmerman had extensive injuries to his face and head, resulting in a great deal of blood and of documented, life-threatening severity. Martin had scratches on his knuckles and a bullet wound.

Don’t overcomplicate this. The police saw all this and did not charge Zimmerman until it became politicized.

Zimmerman’s PA has testified that “whatever actions he took to stop the injuries probably saved his life.” That is medical testimony based on his injuries.

GZ claims he was returning to his SUV before TM challenged him verbally and punched him. There is no witness to back up GZ’s claim.

There is, however, some physical evidence. GZ is the only one with injuries. He had a broken nose, possible concussion, multiple hematomas, abrasions and excessive bleeding from his head and face. Martin had some knuckle scratches. What does that physical evidence tell you?

The only possibility is the arriving officers who took a picture of both men on the ground. Where GZ was laying vs location of his SUV and TM girlfriend’s father’s condo may give a clue on who is telling the truth. Jentel’s testimony said that TM per cellphone conversation said he was being followed by GZ. Despite her clumsy performance, GZ attorney could not shake her story. What happen after that, only GZ version is available, because TM is dead and no other witness saw otherwise. Now it is all down to forensic. Location of the two men, the SUV and TM girlfriend’s father’s condo unit.

I guess you are not following the trial, and have never read anything about it. Martin had enough time to get back to the home where he was staying, even at a slow walk, before Zimmerman ever got off the phone with police. Jeantel's testimony indicates that he did get there. Yet the fight occurred steps away from Zimmerman's car.

Of all the possibilities for what might have happened, Martin fleeing in fear is simply not one of them. It is, in fact, patently ludicrous. And not a single witness has materially contradicted Zimmerman's account of events.

Just because a 911 dispatcher tells me something, I am under no obligation to comply.

It wasn't 911. It was non-emergency. The operator did not order him to do anything, and did not have the authority to do so. The operator has testified that they never order people to do things. Discussion of what the operator said or did not say is a red herring. It is irrelevant.

The issue for the DA is not that GZ was justified to shoot TM, but GZ following TM provoked a fight that ended with a shooting that could have been avoided.

That is wrong. First, there is no evidence that Zimmerman "followed" Martin beyond the 15 seconds or so when he was still on the phone with police. Second, it is perfectly legal to follow somebody, and even to approach them and ask a question. That is not provocative or violent.

CCW need to understand this nuance of the law when using a gun. Why this law exists is to prevent armed people from saying or doing things that they normally will not do if unarmed.

What things do you mean? Things like calling the police about suspicious persons, rather than confronting them?

Example a hothead armed with a CCW Glock, goes to a bar and starts an argument with a bigger guy, which results in a fight, a fight he is losing and then he shoots his bigger and stronger attacker and claims self defense when the cops come. In a drawn out event, self defense is valid if the gunowner did not start the fight, and did everything to de escalate the situation before he had to shoot.

Nothing in your example above is even remotely related to any of the events at issue in this trial. But even in your example, starting an argument does not give the other person the right to punch you. You didn't start the fight. Even if you shove the person, if they respond by hitting you over the head with a brick, you have a right to defend yourself. Good grief, use common sense.

Jentel was a bad witness but she established one thing, TM noticed GZ was following him.

You may not be aware of this, but Zimmerman stated during his call to police that Martin was aware of him. Martin circled Zimmerman's car, checking him out. Jeantel established nothing. Her account, as much as can be credibly gleaned from it, completely supports Zimmerman's version of events.

Question to jury, is that legally considered a provocation?

No, it isn't, and that isn't a question for the jury. Juries decide questions of fact, not of opinion and not of law. It never ceases to amaze me how many people insist that Martin "had every right to walk through that neigborhood," but somehow Zimmerman didn't. There is no evidence whatsoever (even in Jeantel's account) that Zimmerman followed Martin. But even if he did, that is perfectly legal and not provocative, and not a justification for violence against Zimmerman. This is not complicated.

Non of the witnesses so far can account for the events after the cellphone call and neighbor who saw TM on top of GZ. What transpire can determine GZ guilt or innocence.

Not really. We have witness testimony that Martin was banging Zimmerman's head against concrete, which is clearly a life-threatening action. There is no evidence at all that Zimmerman did anything to precipitate this. None. And there is common sense reason to believe that Zimmerman did nothing (why call the police, then start a fight when you know they are minutes away?)

When GZ decided to follow TM after the 911 operator told him it was not necessary he entered a legal no man’s land.

As a matter of law, that is a ridiculous statement. First, he stopped following while still on the phone with police - that is on the recording. Second, the operator had no legal authority to "order" him not to follow. Third, it would have been perfectly legal and not provocative for him to follow, had he done so -but again, there is absolutely no evidence that he did.

GZ claim that he was confronted and attacked by TM while he was heading back to his SUV. Heading back to the SUV is considered a de escalating action. If TM felt threaten by GZ following him, he can attack if GZ was following him.

Are you out of your mind? You think that you can legally assault somebody because you think they are following you?

If GZ was heading back to his SUV, TM cannot follow and attack GZ for the perceived threat.

Sure, he can follow. He can't assault.

There no witness to back up GZ claimed he was attacked after he was heading for his SUV, and TM is dead and cannot tell his side of the story.

Except for every eyewitness so far, none of whom contradict a single detail of Zimmerman's account.

Unless the DA has evidence or witness that GZ lied, GZ is most likely to be off the hook. IMHO who is right or wrong depends on the back and forth between the two men.

So many people say this. Even if Zimmerman followed Martin (no evidence he did,) and even if Zimmerman verbally confronted Martin (no evidence he did,) and even if Zimmerman grabbed or shoved Martin (no evidence he did,) none of that obviates Zimmerman's right to self-defense when Martin punches him in the face and bashes his head against the concrete - which Martin indisputably did.

This trial is not so clear cut.

It's a lot more clear-cut than you seem to think. Let's not lose sight of the forest here: Martin had ample time to return home while out of Zimmerman's sight, while Zimmerman was still on the phone with police. His friend's "earwitness" testimony confirms that in fact, he did return home. The fight occurred fifty feet from Zimmerman's SUV. Martin obviously returned to that spot. Zimmerman screamed for help, Zimmerman is the only one with injuries, and Zimmerman did not pull the trigger until literally seconds before the officers he had called arrived on the scene. Use some common sense.

It was clearcut enough that police knew better than to charge him before this got politicized.

I’ve been hanging in there, voting Republican, but if this clown is nominated - or even taken seriously as a candidate - I will never again vote for this party.

Good grief. I always thought “Stupid Party” was just a nickname...

I'm guessing that if Zimmerman is acquitted of murder charges, the fed's will fill a civil rights violation against him.

I suppose that's somehow still possible, but the DOJ already sent FBI agents down to investigate a possible Civil Rights charge, and concluded there was no basis for that. Overcoming their own investigation would be a pretty big hurdle.