VERDICT REACHED! Zimmerman

“MAGA”

Since: May 13

Columbus, OH

#166 Jul 16, 2013
Che Reagan Christ wrote:
<quoted text>
Like I said...
Again, napkin Pleeease, it's just gross.
Enzyte Bob

Reynoldsburg, OH

#167 Jul 16, 2013
vncnz12 wrote:
<quoted text>1 I am not black 2) something happened to me in a similar situation where what could have become a dangerous confrontation could have occured and everyone involved was white3) This case was a miscarriage of justice just like the Casey Anthony case and the OJ case. All I said before was that the jury system is a joke and so is the criminal justice system in Florida. The bottom line is that the more wealth one has the more chances one has to "get away with it" regardless of race.
Did you read the jury instructions?

The law is very specific in what things the state must prove to result in a conviction. The state didn't prove those elements beyond a reasonable doubt.

The fact that you think someone has to be punished because someone else died and because of some sense of moral justice is irrelevant. The law is written very specifically and the state has to prove he committed the acts described.

The law has may be based in the concept of right and wrong to a certain degree, but we are free men and women and the laws must be very specific before a person is allowed to lose his freedom to the government.

If you don't like the law, change it. Until then, the law is the law.

Legal insurrection (a law professor's blog) thought these were the most relevant to this case and that they were not proven:

========

JUSTIFIABLE HOMICIDE

The killing of a human being is justifiable and lawful if necessarily done while resisting an attempt to murder or commit a felony upon George Zimmerman, or to commit a felony in any dwelling house in which George Zimmerman was at the time of the attempted killing.

JUSTIFIABLE USE OF DEADLY FORCE

An issue in this case is whether George Zimmerman acted in self-defense. It is a defense to the crime of Second Degree Murder, and the lesser included offense of Manslaughter, if the death of Trayvon Martin resulted from the justifiable use of deadly force.

“Deadly force” means force likely to cause death or great bodily harm.

A person is justified in using deadly force if he reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself.

In deciding whether George Zimmerman was justified in the use of deadly force, you must judge him by the circumstances by which he was surrounded at the time the force was used. The danger facing George Zimmerman need not have been actual; however, to justify the use of deadly force, the appearance of danger must have been so real that a reasonably cautious and prudent person under the same circumstances would have believed that the danger could be avoided only through the use of that force. Based upon appearances, George Zimmerman must have actually believed that the danger was real.

If George Zimmerman was not engaged in an unlawful activity and was attacked in any place where he had a right to be, he had no duty to retreat and had the right to stand his ground and meet force with force, including deadly force if he reasonably believed that it was necessary to do so to prevent death or great bodily harm to himself or another or to prevent the commission of a forcible felony.

In considering the issue of self-defense, you may take into account the relative physical abilities and capacities of George Zimmerman and Trayvon Martin.

If in your consideration of the issue of self-defense you have a reasonable doubt on the question of whether George Zimmerman was justified in the use of deadly force, you should find George Zimmerman not guilty.

However, if from the evidence you are convinced beyond a reasonable doubt that George Zimmerman was not justified in the use of deadly force, you should find him guilty if all the elements of the charge have been proved

Full jury instructions here:

http://legalinsurrection.com/2013/07/zimmerma...
Enzyte Bob

Reynoldsburg, OH

#168 Jul 16, 2013
Jury Instruction:

JUSTIFIABLE HOMICIDE

The killing of a human being is justifiable and lawful if necessarily done while resisting an attempt to murder or commit a felony upon George Zimmerman, or to commit a felony in any dwelling house in which George Zimmerman was at the time of the attempted killing.

=========

Salient points:

1. The killing of a human being is justifiable and lawful if;

2. Necessarily done

3. While resisting an attempt to murder or COMMIT A FELONY upon George Zimmerman

======

Assault is a felony;

No proof was shown that Zimmerman started the altercation.
Enzyte Bob

Reynoldsburg, OH

#169 Jul 16, 2013
JUSTIFIABLE USE OF DEADLY FORCE

It is a defense to the crime of Second Degree Murder, and the lesser included offense of Manslaughter, if

1. the death of Trayvon Martin resulted from the JUSTIFIABLE USE of deadly force.

2. A person is justified in using deadly force if he reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent IMMINENT DEATH or GREAT BODILY HARM to himself.

==========

If someone pounding my head into concrete isn't considered to have the potential to result in "GREAT BODILY HARM", I don't know what does.

Again, your sense of right or wrong and your sense that someone died so someone else has to be punished is IRRELEVANT.

The law is very specific as written and it matters not whether Zimmerman wasn't smart enough to connect the dots.

Since: Jan 12

United States

#170 Jul 16, 2013
GlitterSucks wrote:
<quoted text>Kvetch about the stereotype yet then perpetuate it....
Only blacks steal, kill, and destroy properties, ok!

Since: Jan 12

United States

#171 Jul 16, 2013
-tip- wrote:
<quoted text>
Zimmerman did call police.
And there is no law against following anyone.
Did Zimmerman walk up to Trayvon close enough to get socked? And if so, why did he walk up on a strange guy in a hoodie? He told police that Martin looked like something was wrong with him, and that Martin had his hand in his waist band! Zimmerman is full of it! He was never afraid because he was armed...that's why he left his vehicle.

He sized Martin up, knew he had a bag in his hand and obviously heard and seen Martin taking on the earpiece.

Zimmerman, I believe, attempted to physically detain that kid but Martin punched him. Zimmerman got away with murder in my opinion. He had time to pull his gun before he even reached Martin as a show of force.

You whites are gullible to believe Zimmerman's story completely. He had options that he didn't take.
Partly Cloudy

Powell, OH

#172 Jul 16, 2013
vncnz12 wrote:
<quoted text>1 I am not black 2) something happened to me in a similar situation where what could have become a dangerous confrontation could have occured and everyone involved was white3) This case was a miscarriage of justice just like the Casey Anthony case and the OJ case. All I said before was that the jury system is a joke and so is the criminal justice system in Florida. The bottom line is that the more wealth one has the more chances one has to "get away with it" regardless of race.
I get so tired of people telling others to stop watching Fox news. Why? So we can be sheep like all the others and hear that all whites are racist. Especially Republican whites. All Democrats are good. All Republicans are bad. No thanks! I watch all different channels and make up my own mind. There are bad whites and blacks. Bad Republicans and bad Democrats. But I know that there are a hell of a lot of good people of all colors, backgrounds and beliefs out there as well. The media is what is tearing everyone apart. And most of you buy into it.

“Ludibrium est onus genio”

Since: Dec 11

Planet Earth

#173 Jul 16, 2013
Che Reagan Christ wrote:
<quoted text>
That would be two. But who's counting?
If you had bothered to count, there were 31 listed. It doesn't have to actually SAY "Stand your ground" to BE "Stand your ground" The absence of a "duty to retreat" provision is all that is necessary.(Since Ohio has no such provision, it is a defacto stand your ground state. The only difference between Ohio and Florida is the onus of proof of self defense is on the defendant in Ohio (except in one's home or car, where there is a rebuttable presumption of self-defense)).

“Ludibrium est onus genio”

Since: Dec 11

Planet Earth

#174 Jul 16, 2013
lucifer christ wrote:
awful lot of lawyers around here seems like everyone of you turds have an opinion about what happened and everybody seems to know whos guilty and whos innocent without even witnessing what really happened
The jury has spoken, meaning that half of us turds had the RIGHT opinion.
Che Reagan Christ

Medina, OH

#175 Jul 16, 2013
TonyD2 wrote:
<quoted text>
If you had bothered to count, there were 31 listed. It doesn't have to actually SAY "Stand your ground" to BE "Stand your ground" The absence of a "duty to retreat" provision is all that is necessary.(Since Ohio has no such provision, it is a defacto stand your ground state. The only difference between Ohio and Florida is the onus of proof of self defense is on the defendant in Ohio (except in one's home or car, where there is a rebuttable presumption of self-defense)).
You are wrong. There is a duty to retreat before using deadly force in Ohio.

“Ludibrium est onus genio”

Since: Dec 11

Planet Earth

#176 Jul 16, 2013
WISE AMERICAN wrote:
<quoted text> Did Zimmerman walk up to Trayvon close enough to get socked? And if so, why did he walk up on a strange guy in a hoodie? He told police that Martin looked like something was wrong with him, and that Martin had his hand in his waist band! Zimmerman is full of it! He was never afraid because he was armed...that's why he left his vehicle.
He became afraid after Martin punched him, which was the first known illegal act in the whole situation.

“Ludibrium est onus genio”

Since: Dec 11

Planet Earth

#177 Jul 16, 2013
Che Reagan Christ wrote:
<quoted text>
You are wrong. There is a duty to retreat before using deadly force in Ohio.
Show me.

http://codes.ohio.gov/orc/
Che Reagan Christ

Medina, OH

#178 Jul 16, 2013
TonyD2 wrote:
<quoted text>
Show me.
http://codes.ohio.gov/orc/
It's common law. It is not in the ORC.

“Ludibrium est onus genio”

Since: Dec 11

Planet Earth

#179 Jul 16, 2013
Che Reagan Christ wrote:
<quoted text>
It's common law. It is not in the ORC.
How is a person expected to know about it if it's not documented?
Che Reagan Christ

Medina, OH

#180 Jul 16, 2013
TonyD2 wrote:
<quoted text>
How is a person expected to know about it if it's not documented?
It's documented. One needs to know how to do legal research.

“Tenured Marxist Radical”

Since: Jan 13

Ivy League-ISIS

#181 Jul 16, 2013
Enzyte Bob

Reynoldsburg, OH

#182 Jul 16, 2013
-The-Artist- wrote:
http://codes.ohio.gov/orc/2307 .601
Sorry kids, but I think Che is correct on this one:

Ohio has Duty to retreat, unless you are in your Home, Car, or legally and with permission in the home or car of an immediate family member. If you are in a friend’s car, there still is a duty to retreat.

But there is a reverse burden of proof in Ohio and ONLY Ohio – DEFENDANT must prove that was self-defense, unlike in EVERY other state.

From Eugene Volokh:

http://www.volokh.com/2012/03/24/lethal-self-...
Enzyte Bob

Reynoldsburg, OH

#183 Jul 16, 2013
Continued ...

Some states, like here in Ohio, have a DUTY TO RETREAT and require that you avoid the conflict and any potential deadly force outcome. It is best to withdraw, leaving the scene entirely. How far do you need to retreat? Until you can not retreat any farther, sometimes referred to as the “back-to-the-wall law”. This law becomes even more complex when we consider that in some cases it has been argued that the onslaught was so savage there wasn’t time to retreat, and even that turning ones back or leaving cover to escape would increase the victim’s vulnerability. As you can see this issue can get more complex as we get further into its examination.

==========

I don't think this would apply in the Zimmerman case, even if there was a duty to retreat, as his back was against the sidewalk and he couldn't retreat any further.
Enzyte Bob

Reynoldsburg, OH

#184 Jul 16, 2013
1/2

Martin v. Zimmerman: The media at its worst

Everything I initially wrote about the Trayvon Martin killing was based on network news reports. And it was almost entirely wrong.

By John Carlson

In my KOMO radio commentary of March 23, 2012, I said the following about the killing of Trayvon Martin by George Zimmerman:

“Thinking of 17-year old Trayvon the way we’d think of our own kids is exactly how to view this tragedy. The man who police say shot him, George Zimmerman, is a 28-year old CrimeWatch volunteer, who apparently did just about everything a Crimewatch volunteer SHOULDN’T do, such as following the 17 year old teen when a 911 dispatcher advised him not to, confronting him when he had no business doing so, and shooting him. Mr. Zimmerman was not standing his ground against an aggressor, he WAS the aggressor. And Trayvon Martin received the death penalty for walking home in the rain wearing a hooded sweatshirt, and carrying a pack of candy.”

Everything I said was based on what the network news media had been reporting, and continued to report for months. And it was almost entirely wrong.

Eyewitness testimony and physical evidence backs up George Zimmerman’s claim that he was neither the physical aggressor, nor even “standing his ground” that night. He was confronted by an angry Martin, who knocked him down with a punch to the nose and proceeded to pummel him.(There is no evidence of a “fight,” but abundant evidence of an assault).

Trayvon Martin was shot not “walking home in the rain wearing a hooded sweatshirt,”but while straddling Zimmerman MMA style, beating him senseless, bloodying his face and punching or pounding his head against the concrete sidewalk.

The most disputed question that night — who was screaming for help before the shot was fired by Zimmerman?— has family and friends on both sides divided. But it raises another question that essentially answers itself: Who would more likely scream for help? The person being beaten, or the one doing the beating?

One of the most important, and remarkably under-publicized facts that came out at trial is that one of the detectives, while interrogating Zimmerman at the police station that night, told him that the entire incident had been caught on surveillance video. The detective was bluffing, but Zimmerman didn’t know that. His reaction:“Thank God”.

“Thank God.” How many people who do something wrong, lie about it and are told it’s on tape react that way?

Zimmerman certainly made mistakes that night; he should have stayed in his car. But they were mistakes in judgment. So weak was the criminal case against him that many were predicting his acquittal two days into the trial before the defense had even presented its case.

So why are so many people upset and angry about the verdict?

Because they still believe what I believed in that commentary a year and a half ago.

The news media, aided by activists like Al Sharpton, made this entire saga about race from the very beginning. When the racial narrative didn’t fit, the media distorted evidence, doctored audio tape or misled the public about the facts until it did. As Zimmerman’s attorney Mark O’Mara said after the verdict, the press turned Zimmerman, a man who mentored young African American school kids, into a “monster.”
Enzyte Bob

Reynoldsburg, OH

#185 Jul 16, 2013
2/2

Columnist John Nolte from Bigjournalism.com (the people who caught NBC editing a tape to make Zimmerman appear racist) compiled a superb timeline of the media’s race-crime narrative, supplemented with links. Some highlights:

On March 13, 2012, Al Sharpton interviewed the Martin family’s attorney Benjamin Crump, who described Zimmerman as white and claimed that it was Zimmerman who approached Trayvon Martin. The Associated Press had also erroneously described Zimmerman, a Hispanic, as white.

On March 21, 2012, CNN falsely accused Zimmerman of muttering the word “coon” when he called authorities. That was false, but not corrected by CNN for two weeks, long after it had influenced the media angle that Zimmerman was motivated by racial hostility.

On March 22, 2012, when it became clear that Zimmerman was Hispanic (Latina mom, white dad), the New York Times used a new term to describe Zimmerman:“White Hispanic.” Talk about reaching. People would rightfully take umbrage if the Times described the President of the United States as a “White African American.”

Also on March 22nd, at a Florida rally designed to build racial tension and force an arrest of Zimmerman, Al Sharpton stated “Trayvon could have been any one of our sons…” One day later, President Barack Obama echoed that line:“If I had a son," said the president. "he would look like Trayvon.” The racial narrative was set in stone.

It was reinforced by NBC four days later, when it edited Zimmerman’s call to police to make him look like a racist. Here is what NBC reported Zimmerman said:

“This guy looks like he’s up to no good. He looks black.”

Here’s the actual exchange between Zimmerman and the police dispatcher:

Zimmerman:“This guy looks like he’s up to no good. Or he’s on drugs or something. It’s raining and he’s just walking around, looking about.”

Dispatcher:“OK, and this guy, is he black, white or Hispanic?”

Zimmerman:“He looks black.”

A few days after that, ABC claimed that Zimmerman wasn’t injured the night the shooting took place, airing a blurry video of Zimmerman at the police station and stating that “a police surveillance video taken the night Trayvon Martin was shot dead shows no blood or bruises on George Zimmerman.”

As Nolte pointed out, ABC didn’t even bother to enhance the video before running with the report.

A day after that, when ABC’s report was sweeping the nation, NBC’s Chris Matthews backed up ABC’s version, even though one of his Hardball guests pointed out, with pictures, that Zimmerman’s head did show cuts and bleeding.

On April 9th, PBS anchor Gwen Ifill, again described Zimmerman as “white” and that he shot Martin after a “disputed altercation.”

Two days later, Special Prosecutor Angela Corey charged Zimmerman with Second Degree Murder.

And you wonder why so many people still despise George Zimmerman?

Liberal Harvard Law professor, Alan Dershowitz, to his credit, says that Corey’s decision to charge Zimmerman with Murder 2 was outrageous, politically motivated, based on a false affidavit and worthy of disbarment. Even when Judge Debra Nelson allowed an eleventh-hour request by prosecutors to convict Zimmerman on lesser grounds of manslaughter, the jury still cleared him.

What happened that night in Sanford Florida is a tragedy that cost one young man his life and likely ruined the life of another. But as an African-American minister told me, this trial needed to be about truth, not race. For the media, which distorted George Zimmerman’s ethnicity, his words and his injuries, it was precisely the opposite.

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
Dems in disarray- Well, yeah! 50 min Male 1,248
News 2 Columbus council members endorse Nan Whaley f... 6 hr Duke for Mayor 1
Party In Crisis–Anti Trump Approach/Identity Po... 10 hr Duke for Mayor 6
Democratic voter base declines 10 hr Duke for Mayor 2
Why Ask about Obama? America has Only One Presi... 13 hr ImPeach 156
Finally, Donald Trump Ousted from KKKloset 14 hr ImPeach 87
Trump Will Win Again in 2020 16 hr Mojo Risen 86

Columbus Jobs

More from around the web

Personal Finance

Columbus Mortgages