State v Zimmerman

[Coito ergo sum]

Holy crap - the prosecutor just told the jury to find that there is no reasonable doubt that Zimmerman was not the one screaming, because zimmerman's voice was not horse enough and because he lived there long enough to know the name of Twin Trees Lane. LOL.

Joke, man.

If I was on the jury, I'd come back in 5 minutes with a verdict of "Innocent." I'd want to tell them that they wasted everyone's time and millions of dollars and they should be ashamed of themselves.

[Seth]

For anyone interested.

Thanks for the linky.

No question in my mind that the judge overstepped and committed reversible error.

Zimmerman was advised he did not have to speak, and yet he was badgered into speaking. Worse, his LAWYER, who has an absolute right to speak for his client was shut up by the judge.

Unbelievable...jury present or not it's a mistrial. I hope they don't call for a mistrial though because that would give the prosecution another shot at him, which in my opinion would be double jeopardy. If he's convicted, which I doubt, the case should be thrown out for prosecutorial and judicial misconduct.

Edit: And what Zimmerman SHOULD have said is "Your honor, didn't you just tell me I have the right to remain silent? Why are you asking me to speak and why are you refusing to let my lawyer do his job of protecting my rights?"

[Seth]

Where is this claim that I want to hang Z?

No, this is a great case of bringing up what libertarians are doing to the country. They want everyone armed cause the Gubment can't keep you safe. Safe for you, to have the gun. But I want to take your hand guns away so I don't catch all your stray bullets when I go to Disney World with my grand kids some day.

Unfortunately Fortunately you do not have any such right. And my constitutional right outweighs your paranoia.

The amendment gives you the right to bear arms. As long as we give you SOME arms, just like we give women abortion at under 20 weeks, we did not break the laws and supreme court decisions.

Nope. The 2nd Amendment says "arms," that means ALL arms, not "some arms."

The Gubment gets to decide 200 years later how it is practical to give you the freedoms.

No, it doesn't. The government doesn't "give" freedoms or rights, it's explicitly forbidden from infringing upon rights that inhere to every individual automatically the moment they become citizens.

Edited

[Seth]

Wrong you are! People will get elected based on their views on guns. The case is just the kind to bring to National Attention where gun fanatics end up in peace keeping operations with people they never met before. I hope the criminals get more guns, we are soon running out of criminals with guns. How will we be able to make realistic tv shows then?

(The above contains humor, note to Coito)

Your gun nut at DW will shoot me in the parking lot.

The don't go to DW, or wear body armor, or carry your own gun and defend yourself with it. Lots of options other than taking MY arms away because you have some vacuous and paranoid fear that I will use them against you. And what some criminal does with the gun he illegally has is not my responsibility, nor are my rights and personal safety conditioned upon his not illegally having a gun. In fact, the fact that he can illegally have a gun is precisely the reason that my right to keep and bear arms CANNOT be infringed as you suggest.

[Seth]

I'll give you the "assault gun" permit, by the way. If you show me you went to shoot moose, bear or elk every year. If there are no such game to shoot legally in your state, then no.

Fortunately you aren't in charge, and never will be.

[Seth]

That is why I put the quotes. I am not getting into another assault gun discussion. It's your concealed hand guns that the 2nd amendment never states.

Well, in some respects you are correct, and in others mistaken. "Concealed hand guns" are not a separate species, they are "arms" and fall within the ambit of the 2nd Amendment, as the Supreme Court ruled in the DC and Chicago cases.

Whether the "arms" are "concealed" or not lawfully is an entirely different matter.

One of the things that government can, and has done is to reasonably regulate the "time, place and manner" in which a right may be exercised. This applies to free speech as well as the carrying of arms.

But the hurdle the government must overcome in order to regulate a fundamental right IN ANY WAY WHATSOEVER is not merely what some legislators think is a good idea, or even what a majority in the community "want." In order to impose burdens on the exercise of any fundamental right (speech, religion, arms, etc.) the government must show (not merely assert) that it has a "compelling governmental need" to impose the regulation, and that the regulation is the "least intrusive" manner of achieving, and which actually DOES achieve a "legitimate governmental purpose."

It's called "strict scrutiny."

In Heller, the government (DC City Council) could not overcome this hurdle and show that a complete ban on virtually all firearms, specifically handguns, within the confines of Washington, D.C., was either a "compelling governmental need" nor that the absolute ban was the "least intrusive" manner of dealing with criminal gun violence, or that it actually achieved the goal of reducing criminal gun violence, and it ruled that law-abiding citizens in DC DO have a constitutionally protected right to keep and bear handguns at least in their homes because self-defense is, the court stated, a valid and historically supported (original intent) purpose which the Founders chose to prohibit the government from infringing upon.

The court reaffirmed this in McDonald v. Chicago.

And a lower court ordered Illinois to come up with a system for issuing CCW permits that does not impose an "undue burden" on the exercise of the rights recognized by the Supreme Court.

And I'm happy to say that no court recognizes fear and paranoia on the part of some citizens as either a compelling government need to regulate nor as a valid governmental purpose that permits the government to infringe upon the rights of other law-abiding individuals to keep and bear arms for their personal safety.

[Seth]

Holy shit! Why didn't we know about it indeed. Thanks for the link!

[Seth]

The prosecution just asked the jury to use their hearts..... seriously?

"I don't have any charts or six foot long time-lines...just use your common sense, and your hearts...."

Bwahahahahahahahahahhaha!

Translation --- I won't bore you with the evidence -- just feel in your heart that the man is guilty...

...and he's referring to Martin as a "child."

Prosecutors.... scary bunch, man. Scary bunch.

Give 'em a break, they are desperately trying to avoid a Watts-like burndown of the entire city.

[Warren Dew]

The prosecution just asked the jury to use their hearts..... seriously?

"I don't have any charts or six foot long time-lines...just use your common sense, and your hearts...."

Bwahahahahahahahahahhaha!

Translation --- I won't bore you with the evidence -- just feel in your heart that the man is guilty...

...and he's referring to Martin as a "child."

Prosecutors.... scary bunch, man. Scary bunch.

Give 'em a break, they are desperately trying to avoid a Watts-like burndown of the entire city.

They could have done that just by sticking with the original decision not to prosecute.

[Tero]

Us 160-180 pound hooded libruls is all street thugs. We get suspicious when you walk around with bulges on one side by the belt.

[Seth]

Us 160-180 pound hooded libruls is all street thugs. We get suspicious when you walk around with bulges on one side by the belt.

You're fully entitled to be suspicious. It's what you do about your suspicions that determines whether you get shot or not.

[Seth]

The prosecution just asked the jury to use their hearts..... seriously?

"I don't have any charts or six foot long time-lines...just use your common sense, and your hearts...."

Bwahahahahahahahahahhaha!

Translation --- I won't bore you with the evidence -- just feel in your heart that the man is guilty...

...and he's referring to Martin as a "child."

Prosecutors.... scary bunch, man. Scary bunch.

Give 'em a break, they are desperately trying to avoid a Watts-like burndown of the entire city.

They could have done that just by sticking with the original decision not to prosecute.

Yeah, but the Obama administration was evidently pressuring them to make an arrest, so I guess we can blame Obama for the riots that are all but inevitable.

[Gallstones]

Where is this claim that I want to hang Z?

No, this is a great case of bringing up what libertarians are doing to the country. They want everyone armed cause the Gubment can't keep you safe. Safe for you, to have the gun. But I want to take your hand guns away so I don't catch all your stray bullets when I go to Disney World with my grand kids some day.

The amendment gives you the right to bear arms. As long as we give you SOME arms, just like we give women abortion at under 20 weeks, we did not break the laws and supreme court decisions.

The Gubment gets to decide 200 years later how it is practical to give you the freedoms.

You are wrong. Go back to school and pay attention this time. In the US the government does not give us rights or freedoms and it does not get to decide how those rights and freedoms are exercised. The Bill of Rights is a declared restraint on government, it tells government what it can not do.

Also, we don't get "some" arms and you and your ilk have zero authority to tell anyone what arms they get to have. We, under the Second Amendment can have whatever LE and the military has.

[Tero]

So how come you could not say fuck on tv till the 1980s? Where is the FCC in the constitution?

[Gallstones]

So how come you could not say fuck on tv till the 1980s? Where is the FCC in the constitution?

Looks like that infringement has been corrected, hasn't it?
What you are pointing out is how government is only too willing to interfere with rights. It is a good thing when government gets its comeuppance.