Makes sense. They really need to do-away with that law.

We do it all the time to those "criminals" who don't have the resources to keep from being locked up.

None of the state's evidence showed that Zimmerman was ever the aggressor except perhaps the claims of Zimmerman's parents that the voice yelling for help was Martin's. Zimmerman's family testified as well, so at best, you have a wash on that point. If, as Zimmerman told the police, Martin attacked Zimmerman while Zimmerman was following Martin with 911 on the phone, then no, that's not standing your ground, that's assault and battery.

That's why I've continued to press the point that this is perhaps not the ideal set of facts to be outraged over because you really don't know who did what and how responsible for his own death Martin was.

Illegal? Probably not. Could it lead to a possible retrial? Yeah, possibly under the right circumstances. From what little we know from B37, the jurors worked very hard on their verdict and based on the evidence I saw and heard, there was reasonable doubt. I haven't heard or read anything to cause me to doubt that. Because you are unhappy with the verdict isn't rational cause for you to think the jury was fixed from the beginning.

I'm not sure what you mean there. Are you saying that all of the evidence was pointing toward guilt? For whatever reason (luck?) 90% of the cases I work on involve a client who has confessed to everything before he bothered to call me (a few have even confessed on the 10 o'clock news before calling me). Those get plead out.

About 1% of cases go to trial, and yes, as Phil said, trials are a lot about acting. In fact, I've taken acting classes for CLE credit to help me better relate to juries. You have a job as an attorney--use the evidence and witnesses, and if you've got it, your personality, to persuade. That's what we do in trials.

(ETA: The defense did not use Stand Your Ground during the trial but this has arguably been a convenient combination of self-defense and Stand Your Ground. People use self-defense when convenient and Stand Your Ground when convenient. Some people have attached a duty to retreat to Martin and some people have attached it to Zimmerman. Some people say Martin should have gone home, some people say Zimmerman should have stayed his gun toting ass in the car. Ignoring the duty to retreat for self-defense, Martin or Zimmerman then had the right to Stand Their Ground.)

I agree but Stand Your Ground is gaining momentum. As long as we have the NRA and gun rights lobbyists, we will have Stand Your Ground. As long as we have people (predominantly whites) who are being told that society is being overtaken by violent criminals (disproportionately Black and Hispanic), we will have Stand Your Ground. As long as we have states passing laws allowing concealed weapons in bars, theaters, restaurants, and some K-12 and college classrooms we will have Stand Your Ground.

I still say all of the above would be axed if it was racial and ethnic minorities and people lower socioeconomic status who were pushing for gun rights and Stand Your Ground. Gun buyback programs in inner cities do not care whether those law abiding citizens who sell their guns are "standing their ground."

True and this continues to be researched and protested. People know the difference between protesting a specific trial and protesting a general message. There is a difference between filing a civil suit and arguing a civil rights violation. The Zimmerman trial probably ended how it should have ended based on the circumstances.

You'll get no argument from me there. It's a real shame how our criminal justice system works sometimes. In Oklahoma, if you can afford to post bail, they believe you can hire an attorney--a total ridiculous fiction.

And of course, if you can't post bail, our lovely county facility is so overcrowded that the cells are on 24/7 lockdown, 4 to a cell. If we kept POWs in the Oklahoma County Jail, we'd be violating the Geneva Convention.

None of it makes sense, because it's bullshit! Zimmerman shot Martin for no reason other than to fuck with a young black kid who he thought fit the stereotype of a thug. When the police showed up, Zimmerman was standing there with a dead body and a gun. The police questioned him, he explained what happened, and then they let his fat ass go.

If the police would have showed up and Martin was holding a gun with Zimmerman on the ground dead, they would have hauled his ass to jail. And if he asked if he could explain what happened, they would have said explain it to the judge. And before anybody pulls the word "Possibly" out of his or her ass, you know damn well what the outcome would have been. But this is the racist ass country we live in.

Is the horse dead yet!?!

First off, you seem to be blatantly ignoring the fact that there was a fight between the two.....and at the time of the incident Zimmerman was not fat...but rather seemingly fit.

Alanis.

Morissette.

Pardon me if none of the above is your own opinion.

What the heck does that even mean Drphil??

It means it is ironic that YOU would say someone is beating a dead horse. It is ironic that you would announce that Zimmerman is overweight now but appeared to be in decent shape back then. Certainly you know that clarification reinforces what Mizeree was saying. Zimmerman was a seemingly in shape 20-something who followed and had a run of the mill fight with a 17 year old. Zimmerman got his ass whooped, then conveniently found his gun on his hip to level the playing field. Sounds more like gun as a facilitating factor and someone who cannot take an ass whooping than self-defense (or even Stand Your Ground). Even without any mention of race, that reinforces what Mizeree is saying and fuels the protest over the verdict.

As for Mizeree's response that "none of it makes sense", I hope he read my post that Phrozen was responding to. Nothing in Mizeree's response refuted anything in my post to which Phrozen was responding. Trust me, we have enough nonsense in the legal and cj system. Mizeree, you do not want to encourage a system in which a prosecutor can only use what you said in your post in a courtroom and it results in a conviction. If you are fine with that, also be fine with that when it results in a verdict that you disagree with. Instead, you would probably argue against a verdict and complain the prosecution didn't have a strong case. If the defendant is a racial and ethnic minority, you would probably claim racist legal/cj system. But, that's what you wanted when it came to the Zimmerman verdict--you got what you asked for and don't like the outcome. We have a right to disagree with verdicts and we have a right to nonviolent protest. In using these rights, we should understand the different foundations of our protests and think about potential outcomes. I compare it to people who are against the death penalty until it hits close to home. Then they want the death penalty in their state and have amnesia as to why it was done away with. I weep for a society (and world) that is expected to go up and down on a whim.

The dead horse is the argument that keeps being made as typed out by Mizeree:
None of it makes sense, because it's bullshit! Zimmerman shot Martin for no reason other than to fuck with a young black kid who he thought fit the stereotype of a thug. When the police showed up, Zimmerman was standing there with a dead body and a gun. The police questioned him, he explained what happened, and then they let his fat ass go.
These two statements are incorrect....an the trial proved that.....the shooting was due to a fight....not to f$&$ with Martin.....and Zimmerman was not FAT at the time...

Badgeguy is slow.

I thought it was against the rules of GC to be negative towards other GC members??

Oh well....

Juror B29: Zimmerman 'got away with murder' but had to be acquitted

Have jurors always been so quick to talk to the media and write books? Don't they usually wait longer than 1-2 weeks?

And....

Family saved by Zimmerman cancels press conference

:rolleyes:

There can be more than one dead horse.

These are the rules:

By agreeing to these rules, you warrant that you will not post any messages that are obscene, vulgar, sexually-oriented, hateful, threatening, or otherwise violative of any laws.

Nothing in there about being negative towards other members. We'd all be in a boatload of trouble if being negative were a problem.