Verdict is in

[AuburnSchnauzer]

The system worked. The jury agreed that nothing was proved by the state.

 

[neesaki]

Ha ha...Laura Ingram tweeted..."is she going to thank the Academy?"

Wow, Bernie is all ego. I mean, that's cool. I like men's men, but let it go. You are all showing your @ss3s. Still talking about profiling and following, how about addressing the crime that persists in your community that led to such fear of outsiders? Address that.

Oh and now she's thanking everyone. Wow her demeanor scares me. It's not normal.

Jodi Arias gone political ? LOL

 

[mdana]

I've never understood, did TM have no right to stand his ground? I mean he was a teenager, who was being stalked by an unknown individual in an unknown car in the middle of the night.

Once you are dead you don't have a right to stand your ground. SYG only aplies as a right in a legal proceeding. TM was never charged with a crime. If things had turned out differently and he survived, then he could have invoked SYG. He would have been able to present his side to the police and invoke it possibly if his attorney thought it could be proven.

 

[mom23gr8kids]

Can't find a single news report on any actual riots happening. Just a bunch of fear mongering.

Not an actual riot but one of the news channels (MSNBC I think) showed video footage from San Francisco of a very large group marching through the streets with signs and shouting.

 

[Tricia]

ok everyone closing thread in 5 minutes​

​

 

[ScarlettScarpetta]

Not an actual riot but one of the news channels (MSNBC I think) showed video footage from San Francisco of a very large group marching through the streets with signs and shouting.

It is not a riot. It is a march and completely peaceful at this point.

DR MLK daughter called for peace this morning. A march would be a peaceful protest.

 

[MeeBee]

Not an actual riot but one of the news channels (MSNBC I think) showed video footage from San Francisco of a very large group marching through the streets with signs and shouting.

Not really a riot, is it? They are protesting. It's their constitutional right and they should be able to do so without being labled rioters and criminals. Can no one see the irony in this???

 

[Mels3kidz]

If there's nothing more to this story than this woman firing warning shots to escape from her abusive husband, this is a travesty. What is the state using to justify these charges? My God, she had a protective order against him!

From what I remember they are saying that because she had exited the house and then reentered (to retrieve her car keys) she couldn't invoke SYG.

Mel

 

[Truthy]

No. If he initiated a punch in GZ's face the answer is no. Both had a legal right to be there. A reasonable person might be afraid, but not afraid of imminent death or serious bodily injury. The language IMMINENT means just that. The fear of someone following you or even provoking you with words is not justification for use of physical force. Your kids need to know this!

It is not OK to punch someone and then continue to do physical battle. You could lose your life and under many self-defense laws in this country, the other guy walks.

http://ccwvslaw.org/item/848

If GZ had his gun out, he would have every right. We will never know - in many many cases who killed who with malice and intent because juries do not understand circumstancial evidence. They think they need a video, and to climb Mt Everest to watch it, in order to use their judgement. They would be wrong.

 

[ScarlettScarpetta]

Good night all.

I pray that everyone finds some peace tonight..

 

[Tricia]

thread closing in 2 minutes​

 

[Reality Orlando]

Earlier I mentioned that shooting someone in the arm or leg would be against the law because that would mean that you do not feel in imminent danger.

When in imminent danger you may only shoot to end the threat.

We cannot tolerate this idea of warning shots as that means rounds are being shot in the air and can hit a totally innocent person.

You ONLY shoot in total control at the target you intend to hit and subdue..

Can you cite where it says that shooting in the arm or leg is against the law? What state is that in? Just curious.

 

[Etiana]

Thanks Tricia for keeping this thread open for as long as you did! Thanks for all you do! Good night all.

 

[reedus23]

So my question is, what if GZ walks to his car tonight, is confronted by a TM supporter, and feeling threatened, punches the supporter and the supporter then shoots GZ dead, will everyone support the supporter as much as they are GZ?

 

[ziggy]

Let me just reiterate that for those of you with teens and young adults: please take this lesson from this case -
Over the decades, hundreds of lawyers have argued that their client was provoked by words or by gestures. They have lost. Since 1975, caselaw throughout the United States has been universal: “Words and gestures alone… regarless of how insulting or inflamatory those words or gestures may be, do not constitute adequate provocation for [physical assault].”

Provocation bars self-defense when it is physical.
The law does say that if you shove, kick, or hit someone you cannot shoot them when they shove, kick, or hit you back.

776.041 (1) — The [self-defense] justification described in the preceding sections of this chapter is not available to a person who:
(2) Initially provokes the use of force against himself or herself…

In order to bar self-defense, the: provocation must be physical and the retaliation must be commensurate with the provocation. “Sticks and stones” is the rule of thumb. Hit someone who merely insulted you or gave you the finger, and you risk being killed or imprisoned.

And yet,even the law barring self-defense if you hit the other person first has exceptions.

776.041 (1) (a) — … 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…

In other words, even if A hits B first. If B retaliates so strongly that A is in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm and cannot escape, then A can legally shoot B dead even though A started it.

Also,

776.041 (1) (a) — 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.

In other words, say that A hits B and runs away. If B then chases A and puts A in danger of death or great bodily harm, then A can then legally shoot B dead even though A started it.

“But this is unfair!”, you say. “This means someone can walk up to me, insult me, call be a “******”, give me the finger, even hit me, and run away. If I chase him to deliver an “*advertiser censored*-whoopin”, he can legally shoot me! It is so unfair!”

Again, If you think a law should be changed, tell your state legislator. The justice system does not care whether a law is fair, simply that it is the law.

No matter how provoked you think you are, no matter how angry or upset you may be. Try to deliver an “*advertiser censored*-whoopin” and you risk death or imprisonment.

courtesy of http://ccwvslaw.org/item/848

 

[mom23gr8kids]

It is not a riot. It is a march and completely peaceful at this point.

DR MLK daughter called for peace this morning. A march would be a peaceful protest.

Yep that is what I said "NOt an actual riot"

 

[MeeBee]

Can we maybe get a GZ thread on a different board by any chance?

 

[IzzyBlanche]

Can we all agree to state it this way:
George Zimmerman was found not guilty.
The jury never said he was innocent.

My heart goes out to the Martin family this evening.

jmO

I agree, but many won't.

They equate not guilty = innocent.

Which is not the way the law works.

The standard is did the prosecution prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt.

The jury may well feel that GZ was guilty but the state did not prove the case beyond a reasonable doubt so according to the law they were bound to find him not guilty.

Or they may well feel that GZ was totally innocent. Unless they speak, we'll never know just exactly what they meant by "not guilty."

 

[Truthy]

I find this kind of insulting.

I am not a GZ supporter. I am supporter of the law for all people. A fair trial and constitutional rights for anyone charged with a crime.

That is the law you are supporting- you want to apply it selectively now?

I am very happy my state has saner statues.

 

[CHERIE.T]

This was a JUST trial and emotion was left out like it should have been.

moo

As an African-American man myself, I'm outraged at this verdict. George may have gotten away with murder & may be free in the eyes of the courts, but he's not free in the eyes of millions of strangers. He'll now have to go into hiding for the rest of his life...or move out of this country & never return here again. It's cases like this that makes me want to move to another country, even.

He'll have it even worse than Casey Anthony, especially when race is being brought into this equation.

No damn sad is that? TM had no right to attack GZ. GZ shot in self defense....he was found NOT GUILTY...nuff said.