Re: Unarmed teen shooting: the debate trickles on...

Post by **Coito ergo sum** » Mon Jun 10, 2013 3:19 pm

The trial begins:

http://apnews.myway.com/article/20130610/DA6QPBKG0.html

Post by **MrJonno** » Mon Jun 10, 2013 3:23 pm

I assume the trial will be determined by the colour of the jury, all black = guilty all white= not guilty and mixed well do you need an unanimous verdict?

Post by **Coito ergo sum** » Mon Jun 10, 2013 3:41 pm

MrJonno wrote:I assume the trial will be determined by the colour of the jury, all black = guilty all white= not guilty and mixed well do you need an unanimous verdict?

Yes, you need a unanimous verdict.

The jury will almost certainly be mixed. It couldn't be all black because the demographics of the area have blacks as the minority, so the odds of that day the jury pool being overwhelmingly black would be slim. And, it couldn't be all white because people would burn the courthouse to the ground.

Post by **Tyrannical** » Mon Jun 10, 2013 7:07 pm

I'll still be surprised if the trial actually reaches the jury. I think the judge may at some point dismiss the charges due to lack of evidence that a crime was committed.

Post by **Svartalf** » Mon Jun 10, 2013 7:16 pm

Tyrannical wrote:I'll still be surprised if the trial actually reaches the jury. I think the judge may at some point dismiss the charges due to lack of evidence that a crime was committed.

Remind me, is this takihg place in TX?

Post by **Tyrannical** » Tue Jun 11, 2013 12:00 am

Svartalf wrote:
Tyrannical wrote:I'll still be surprised if the trial actually reaches the jury. I think the judge may at some point dismiss the charges due to lack of evidence that a crime was committed.
Remind me, is this takihg place in TX?

Florida, which is in some ways "Texas lite"

Post by **laklak** » Tue Jun 11, 2013 12:03 am

Tyrannical wrote:
Svartalf wrote:
Tyrannical wrote:I'll still be surprised if the trial actually reaches the jury. I think the judge may at some point dismiss the charges due to lack of evidence that a crime was committed.
Remind me, is this takihg place in TX?
Florida, which is in some ways "Texas lite"

Without the blues scene and with better mojitos.

Post by **Tero** » Tue Jun 11, 2013 12:19 am

Zimmerman is charged with second-degree murder. He says he shot Martin in self-defense. If convicted, Zimmerman, who identifies himself as Hispanic, could get a life sentence.
Under Florida law, Zimmerman, 29, could shoot Martin in self-defense if it was necessary to prevent death or great bodily harm.

So here we learn that it is more successful to stand your ground with a gun than stand your ground with fists against an armed stalker who never identified himself as security.

What's to decide?

Post by **Collector1337** » Tue Jun 11, 2013 1:53 am

Some mistakes you don't live long enough to repeat.

That's the way it goes in this wicked world.

Post by **Seth** » Tue Jun 11, 2013 1:53 am

Tero wrote:Zimmerman is charged with second-degree murder. He says he shot Martin in self-defense. If convicted, Zimmerman, who identifies himself as Hispanic, could get a life sentence.
Under Florida law, Zimmerman, 29, could shoot Martin in self-defense if it was necessary to prevent death or great bodily harm.

So here we learn that it is more successful to stand your ground with a gun than stand your ground with fists against an armed stalker who never identified himself as security.

What's to decide?

Exactly...nothing's to decide because Zimmerman did absolutely nothing illegal, Martin did.

Post by **mistermack** » Tue Jun 11, 2013 8:51 pm

I confidently expect justice to be done.
US justice that is. I'm backing whichever lawyer has the best hair.

Post by **Coito ergo sum** » Wed Jun 12, 2013 2:36 pm

Tero wrote:Zimmerman is charged with second-degree murder. He says he shot Martin in self-defense. If convicted, Zimmerman, who identifies himself as Hispanic, could get a life sentence.
Under Florida law, Zimmerman, 29, could shoot Martin in self-defense if it was necessary to prevent death or great bodily harm.

So here we learn that it is more successful to stand your ground with a gun than stand your ground with fists against an armed stalker who never identified himself as security.

What's to decide?

What are you babbling about?

Do you intend these things to make sense, or is this another attempt at humor?

Post by **Coito ergo sum** » Wed Jun 12, 2013 2:38 pm

mistermack wrote:I confidently expect justice to be done.
US justice that is. I'm backing whichever lawyer has the best hair.

And, of course, once again....

....the Merkin justice system is paltry compared to the Brit or other Yerpeein' system...

Naivete, self-righteousness and conceit -- the Yerpeein' trifecta.

Post by **Tero** » Wed Jun 12, 2013 4:44 pm

Coito ergo sum wrote:
Tero wrote:Zimmerman is charged with second-degree murder. He says he shot Martin in self-defense. If convicted, Zimmerman, who identifies himself as Hispanic, could get a life sentence.
Under Florida law, Zimmerman, 29, could shoot Martin in self-defense if it was necessary to prevent death or great bodily harm.

So here we learn that it is more successful to stand your ground with a gun than stand your ground with fists against an armed stalker who never identified himself as security.

What's to decide?
Why is the gun dude allowed stand your ground but the man being stalked by unknown

What are you babbling about?

Do you intend these things to make sense, or is this another attempt at humor?

Why is the gun dude allowed stand your ground rules but the teen being stalked by unknown hispanic with with bulge in his pocket is not? He was on to some sort of attack as soon as Z got out of his car. Best defence against gun carrying idiot is attack. Going 50 ft away puts you at a disadvantage with no cover.

rationalia.com