The George Zimmerman Case!

“Don't trust the internet!”

Since: Jan 12

Location hidden

#1825 Jun 15, 2013
Maybe wrote:
Maybe if we're lucky, someone will take him out before the trial, and the taxpayers will save a lot of money.
Yeah, I don't hope for that.

I also think that his personal jeopardy has been greatly overplayed.

“Don't trust the internet!”

Since: Jan 12

Location hidden

#1826 Jun 15, 2013
Article about the legal difficulties of attempting to combine an immunity hearing with the trial. http://frederickleatherman.com/2013/03/06/com...

BTW--without a ruling of immunity, even should Zimmerman be found not guilty, he could still be sued for wrongful death by the family. The advantage to immunity is that it applies to both civil and criminal actions.
Wait what

Dublin, OH

#1827 Jun 15, 2013
FKA Reader wrote:
<quoted text>
That is not outing. That is responding to the individual voire dire with regard to the prospective jurors exposure to and beliefs based on what they have heard through the media.
A number of prospective jurors have been eliminated, however two were most likely eliminated because they demnstrated an obvious bias. One was the Facebook poster. The other was a woman who stated that she believed Zimmerman to be innoceent and Trayvon to be on the wrong path and among the wrong crowd (and lacking a present father). Some others were presumably eliminated due to the hardship presented by sequestration.
However, Don West forced the elimination of a juror by revealing where she worked. The question is, was this intentional, or merely sloppy? Particularly considering the defense insistence on an anonymous jury--for their protection.
Wrong. She outed herself by posting her summons on her Facebook page. Wouldn't you be interested in the resulting comments?

“Don't trust the internet!”

Since: Jan 12

Location hidden

#1828 Jun 15, 2013
With regard to the claim that following (or stalking) Trayvon was not against the law, here is a legal opinion:

As any lawyer familiar with the law of conspiracy well knows, conspiracy indictments typically allege the commission of lawful acts by co-conspirators in furtherance of objectives of a conspiracy. Thus, simple events like using a cell phone to confirm a scheduled meeting with a co-conspirator are often charged as overt acts in furtherance of a conspiracy.

Therefore, the issue is not whether the act itself was lawful. The issue is what was the actor’s intent when he committed the act.

Nobody would seriously argue that the defendant could not get out of his vehicle and follow Trayvon Martin. He certainly could.

The relevant questions in this case are why did the defendant get out of his vehicle to follow Trayvon Martin and why did he lie about it afterward?

I do not believe the jury is going to have any difficulty figuring out the answers to those questions: The defendant intended to prevent this “asshole” from getting away and he shot him to death when Trayvon resisted. The defendant lied about it afterward because he did not want to go to prison.
http://frederickleatherman.com/category/self-...
Wait what

Dublin, OH

#1829 Jun 15, 2013
TonyD2 wrote:
<quoted text>
Actually the defense's evidence does not. It only has to create reasonable doubt.
I didn't mean on the side of the defense. I don't believe I said it was on the side of the defense.
Wait what

Dublin, OH

#1830 Jun 15, 2013
FKA Reader wrote:
With regard to the claim that following (or stalking) Trayvon was not against the law, here is a legal opinion:
As any lawyer familiar with the law of conspiracy well knows, conspiracy indictments typically allege the commission of lawful acts by co-conspirators in furtherance of objectives of a conspiracy. Thus, simple events like using a cell phone to confirm a scheduled meeting with a co-conspirator are often charged as overt acts in furtherance of a conspiracy.
Therefore, the issue is not whether the act itself was lawful. The issue is what was the actor’s intent when he committed the act.
Nobody would seriously argue that the defendant could not get out of his vehicle and follow Trayvon Martin. He certainly could.
The relevant questions in this case are why did the defendant get out of his vehicle to follow Trayvon Martin and why did he lie about it afterward?
I do not believe the jury is going to have any difficulty figuring out the answers to those questions: The defendant intended to prevent this “asshole” from getting away and he shot him to death when Trayvon resisted. The defendant lied about it afterward because he did not want to go to prison.
http://frederickleatherman.com/category/self-...
A controversial source, Reader. Is there another?

“Don't trust the internet!”

Since: Jan 12

Location hidden

#1831 Jun 15, 2013
Wait what wrote:
<quoted text>
Here's the author of what I posted:
http://legalinsurrection.com/author/law-of-se...
Thank you for the info. From the author's bio:

He began his competitive shooting activities as a youth in smallbore rifle, and today is a Life Member of the National Rifle Association (NRA) and a Life Member and Master-class competitor in multiple classifications in the International Defenseive Pistol Association (IDPA). Andrew has for many years been an NRA-certified firearms instructor in pistol, rifle, and personal protection, and has previously served as an Adjunct Instructor on the Law of Self Defense at the SigSauer Academy in Epping, NH. He holds or has held concealed carry permits for Massachusetts, Connecticut, Rhode Island, New Hampshire, Maine, Pennsylvania, Florida, Utah, Virginia, and other states.

In fact, his gun background seems to outweigh his legal background, at least insofar as how he has chosen to portray himself.

Now, it is true that if you put two lawyers together they are bound to come up with at least three opinions. In this case, we can see what is driving this guy's opinions.
Wait what

Dublin, OH

#1832 Jun 15, 2013
FKA Reader wrote:
<quoted text>
Good question, but all of them.
He has stood by his claim that he went straight from his truck to the next street over (not "following," merely going in the same direction) to get an address, and then turning around and returning directly to the truck--but being jumped on the way.
From the location of phone and flashlight, it would appear that he turned south when he reached the other street and continued walking south past several houses before cutting back into the dogwalk area, where he met with Trayvon and the phone and flashlight were dropped in scuffle/chase. They moved north (confirmed by an eye witness) to the place where the body was found.
Zimmerman's tale is that he reached the street and turned back to the truck by the same path, intercepted at the "t" where the 2 sidewalks meet. There he was knocked to the ground with one blow and pinned--receiving blows and being smothered until he remembered the gun and shot. He cannot account for how the body ended up where it did. He also claims he held Trayvon's arms spread-eagled in order to keep him from being able to reach a weapon that Zimmerman believed he had (Z. claims he did not believe he had actually shot him, only scared him into submission). Trayvon's hands were found underneath him.
Whatever else anyone wants to believe, Zimmerman's narrative does not fit the facts.
Casey Anthony's didn't, either, and she may very well be spending her Saturday afternoon shopping.

“Don't trust the internet!”

Since: Jan 12

Location hidden

#1833 Jun 15, 2013
Wait what wrote:
<quoted text>
Wrong. She outed herself by posting her summons on her Facebook page. Wouldn't you be interested in the resulting comments?
Nope.

“Don't trust the internet!”

Since: Jan 12

Location hidden

#1834 Jun 15, 2013
Wait what wrote:
<quoted text>
A controversial source, Reader. Is there another?
Please outline the controversy and the reputable sources on either side of the controversy.
Wait what

Dublin, OH

#1835 Jun 15, 2013
FKA Reader wrote:
Article about the legal difficulties of attempting to combine an immunity hearing with the trial. http://frederickleatherman.com/2013/03/06/com...
BTW--without a ruling of immunity, even should Zimmerman be found not guilty, he could still be sued for wrongful death by the family. The advantage to immunity is that it applies to both civil and criminal actions.
Congratulations, Reader. In your effort to look important, you have cited a very controversial source who has defended white supremacists, among others. I am completely taken aback by your confidence in his words and, quite frankly, don't know what to say except "Wow".
Wait what

Dublin, OH

#1836 Jun 15, 2013
FKA Reader wrote:
<quoted text>
Thank you for the info. From the author's bio:
He began his competitive shooting activities as a youth in smallbore rifle, and today is a Life Member of the National Rifle Association (NRA) and a Life Member and Master-class competitor in multiple classifications in the International Defenseive Pistol Association (IDPA). Andrew has for many years been an NRA-certified firearms instructor in pistol, rifle, and personal protection, and has previously served as an Adjunct Instructor on the Law of Self Defense at the SigSauer Academy in Epping, NH. He holds or has held concealed carry permits for Massachusetts, Connecticut, Rhode Island, New Hampshire, Maine, Pennsylvania, Florida, Utah, Virginia, and other states.
In fact, his gun background seems to outweigh his legal background, at least insofar as how he has chosen to portray himself.
Now, it is true that if you put two lawyers together they are bound to come up with at least three opinions. In this case, we can see what is driving this guy's opinions.
I'll take a NRA member who is protecting a guaranteed right of the Constitution over a white supremacist defender any day of the week, and I will make no apology.
Wait what

Dublin, OH

#1837 Jun 15, 2013
FKA Reader wrote:
<quoted text>
Please outline the controversy and the reputable sources on either side of the controversy.
Too lazy to Google or don't know where to look? I was going to leave it at controversial but I know that you insist on details to tear your "opponents" apart.

“Ludibrium est onus genio”

Since: Dec 11

Planet Earth

#1838 Jun 15, 2013
Maybe wrote:
Maybe if we're lucky, someone will take him out before the trial, and the taxpayers will save a lot of money.
Of course, they'd only be spending that money on the one who did it.
Wait what

Dublin, OH

#1839 Jun 15, 2013
FKA Reader wrote:
<quoted text>
Nope.
No, I'm sure you wouldn't. It might expose an agenda. Oh well, they're put away somewhere in case they are needed.

“Ludibrium est onus genio”

Since: Dec 11

Planet Earth

#1840 Jun 15, 2013
FKA Reader wrote:
<quoted text>
If the starts with,'do you believe?' or asks for a conclusion, that would be speculation--even if the form was yes or no.
"Would that be consistent with...?"
Wait what

Dublin, OH

#1841 Jun 15, 2013
FKA Reader wrote:
<quoted text>
Please outline the controversy and the reputable sources on either side of the controversy.
Not in outline format - I picked one.

http://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinion...

“Don't trust the internet!”

Since: Jan 12

Location hidden

#1842 Jun 15, 2013
Wait what wrote:
<quoted text>
Too lazy to Google or don't know where to look? I was going to leave it at controversial but I know that you insist on details to tear your "opponents" apart.
You are the one who made the allegation.

Defend it.

If you can.

“Don't trust the internet!”

Since: Jan 12

Location hidden

#1843 Jun 15, 2013
Wait what wrote:
<quoted text>
I'll take a NRA member who is protecting a guaranteed right of the Constitution over a white supremacist defender any day of the week, and I will make no apology.
And the white supremacists who post comments to your NRA apologist's site?
Wait what

Dublin, OH

#1844 Jun 15, 2013

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

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.

Columbus Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
If There is Anything I Can't Stand! 10 min They cannot kill ... 8
Black Crime is out of control. 12 min BoneYard 101
Another Mohammed cartoon contest..... 13 min They cannot kill ... 31
Worst President in History 17 min BoneYard 293
Hillary Clinton is mocking herself with these '... 21 min Concerned Citizen 16
News Deal for water plant irks Delaware County 30 min iMsMartErtHanYOU 3
Hillary Clinton 2016? (Apr '13) 45 min BoneYard 275
dana turtle 1 hr Channel Six 19
More from around the web

Columbus People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

Personal Finance

Mortgages [ See current mortgage rates ]