First Prev
of 4
Next Last

Since: Apr 13

Location hidden

#73 Jul 18, 2013
Armed wrote:
<quoted text>
Thought you read the transcripts? You'll find the reference in the final instructions IF you did!
Your reading comprehension is awful. The Defense never entered SYG as their defense claim. Exactly what I said. The Prosecution did in closings but that's not admissable as evidence. It was grasping at straws, just like the child endangerment charge they added at the end. They knew they were beat and that was a last ditch effort.

Now you should educate yourself on the reason why they defended this from the angle of self defense nad not stand your ground. THe implications on the Civil actions are immense. In short, Martin's family is not allowed to win judgement against Zimmerman because Trayvon was killed during an act of self defense. If it had been SYG they'd have a civil case. FL law allows for immunity from civil action in self defense cases. O'Mara said as much in his post verdict press conference when asked.

Since: Apr 13

Location hidden

#74 Jul 18, 2013
Armed wrote:
<quoted text>
http://www.scribd.com/doc/153354467/George-Zi...
"The Stand Your Ground law that gained notoriety in the wake of Trayvon Martin’s shooting became central to the case again last week, when written instructions advised the jury that found shooter George Zimmerman not guilty to take the law’s central provision into account."
"Most famously, Zimmerman originally claimed he had immunity from prosecution because Florida’s Stand Your Ground allowed him to pursue Trayvon Martin for looking suspicious. He dropped the claim, and argued self-defense instead when he went to trial, but the jury instructions contained Stand Your Ground language, and a juror admitted it still played a role in their decision to acquit him of all charges."
Those are jury instructions, not testimony.

As I just said, the SYG was introduced in closings. The jury found him not guilty based on self defense which was the Defense's claim all along. They, the Defense, never positioned SYG as their defense.

Essentially the Jury cut the Martin family off at the knees by basing their decision on self defense.
Armed

Gardner, MA

#75 Jul 18, 2013
FLRetiree wrote:
<quoted text>
Your reading comprehension is awful. The Defense never entered SYG as their defense claim. Exactly what I said. The Prosecution did in closings but that's not admissable as evidence. It was grasping at straws, just like the child endangerment charge they added at the end. They knew they were beat and that was a last ditch effort.
Now you should educate yourself on the reason why they defended this from the angle of self defense nad not stand your ground. THe implications on the Civil actions are immense. In short, Martin's family is not allowed to win judgement against Zimmerman because Trayvon was killed during an act of self defense. If it had been SYG they'd have a civil case. FL law allows for immunity from civil action in self defense cases. O'Mara said as much in his post verdict press conference when asked.
F-You, I understand completely and your insistance that I don't is really tiresome!

a) Jurors were swayed by the instructions, instructions are directions, they matter!

b) Nobody is arguing the law wasn't followed, I am arguing the laws all interconnected, result in travesties of Justice.

LEgal travesties!

You'd like to say they don't, they obviously do! And those laws are also, created by a funded organization, not the representatives you elect!

CAn you comprehend this?

Since: Apr 13

Location hidden

#76 Jul 18, 2013
Armed wrote:
<quoted text>
F-You, I understand completely and your insistance that I don't is really tiresome!
a) Jurors were swayed by the instructions, instructions are directions, they matter!
b) Nobody is arguing the law wasn't followed, I am arguing the laws all interconnected, result in travesties of Justice.
LEgal travesties!
You'd like to say they don't, they obviously do! And those laws are also, created by a funded organization, not the representatives you elect!
CAn you comprehend this?
You are an angry and troubled person. Do you interact with people face-to-face in this manner? Your obvious and deliberate ignorance of the facts makes it clear that you're unwilling or unable to comprehend and grasp the facts of this case. If you go through life as a hot head you'll always end up on the losing end.
Renee

Concord, MA

#77 Jul 19, 2013
FLRetiree wrote:
<quoted text>
You are an angry and troubled person. Do you interact with people face-to-face in this manner? Your obvious and deliberate ignorance of the facts makes it clear that you're unwilling or unable to comprehend and grasp the facts of this case. If you go through life as a hot head you'll always end up on the losing end.
weizerheimi seize and adiist
One thing

Gardner, MA

#78 Jul 19, 2013
FLRetiree wrote:
<quoted text>
You are an angry and troubled person. Do you interact with people face-to-face in this manner? Your obvious and deliberate ignorance of the facts makes it clear that you're unwilling or unable to comprehend and grasp the facts of this case. If you go through life as a hot head you'll always end up on the losing end.
yes of course, I must be angry, it has nothing to do with your cement head! And you don't like being proven wrong!

I understand completely and your insistance that I don't is really tiresome!
a) Jurors were swayed by the instructions, instructions are directions, they matter!
b) Nobody is arguing the law wasn't followed, I am arguing the laws all interconnected, result in travesties of Justice.
LEgal travesties!
You'd like to say they don't, they obviously do! And those laws are also, created by a funded organization, not the representatives you elect!
CAn you comprehend this?

Since: Apr 13

Location hidden

#79 Jul 19, 2013
One thing wrote:
<quoted text>
yes of course, I must be angry, it has nothing to do with your cement head! And you don't like being proven wrong!
I understand completely and your insistance that I don't is really tiresome!
a) Jurors were swayed by the instructions, instructions are directions, they matter!
b) Nobody is arguing the law wasn't followed, I am arguing the laws all interconnected, result in travesties of Justice.
LEgal travesties!
You'd like to say they don't, they obviously do! And those laws are also, created by a funded organization, not the representatives you elect!
CAn you comprehend this?
If the jurors were swayed by the instructions it was away from the defense's contention. Look at the BS that the Judge pulled at the end, allowing the Prosecution to introduce child endangerment at the 11th hour. There's a good article by Alan Dershowitz you should read. While everything the Prosecution was legal, it was morally and ethically questionable. This was dirty pool at its best and that's because the State never had a valid case. This was all politics.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker
First Prev
of 4
Next Last

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Fitchburg Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Storm bad, but it could've been worse 1 hr BillyBob 14
Two-alarm fire at Westminster home 14 hr papabear 1
Massachusetts town weighs nation's 1st tobacco ban 17 hr Inquisitive 43
Lancaster gets Big Belly trash compactor - Sent... (Jul '10) 19 hr Tammy 8
Cities, towns savoring fuel savings 20 hr Tammy 9
Oh Kevin for where art thou? Tue Jtn 5
At least 6-7 inches of snow in Fitchburg by noon Jan 26 Jtn 1

Fitchburg News Video

Fitchburg Dating
Find my Match
More from around the web

Fitchburg People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

Personal Finance

Mortgages [ See current mortgage rates ]

NFL Latest News

Updated 6:27 am PST