100% FREE ONLINE DATING
sponsored links
|
Topic:
The Stand Your Ground Case
|
|
there are other criminal charges beside murder
I am really happy you are wrong. If a jury convicts with an absence of physical evidence its the judges job to call a mistrial.
and they dont have to be 'proven', just proven beyond a reasonable doubt that word 'reasonable' will be totally dependent upon the perception of the jurors,,,, there is evidence of a PURSUIT by someone with a gun, thats a start wow, you really never heard of a circumstantial case? or convictions based upon circumstantial evidence? oh well,,, Find me an example, the only way to find an example is when it has been appealed. Because in every other case they just treat circumstantial evidence as primary evidence. The law has made objective definitions for words like reasonable when they are directly related to things like, fear. Reasonable fear is not fear of a hang nail, and no amount of psychosis changes that objective legal definition. Just like there are scientific terms, there are legal terms, and they are often extremely well defined. not reasonable fear reasonable DOUBT is it unreasonable to doubt that this boy who had been being pursued by a stranger and ran behind buildings to loose him then TURNED Back around to go confront him? I dont think thats an unreasonable doubt at all and many other jurors might not |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
replace strike with illegally touch,,,,
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Ask the Jews of Hitlers Germany, even many of the the German "pure" from that era what they think of the OweBummer occupancy and the laws he is implementing.... thats odd there is no group that has a singular opinion or mindset it just doesnt exist Im sure some Jews will look poorly on obama, and others will not,, |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic:
The Stand Your Ground Case
|
|
there are other criminal charges beside murder
I am really happy you are wrong. If a jury convicts with an absence of physical evidence its the judges job to call a mistrial.
and they dont have to be 'proven', just proven beyond a reasonable doubt that word 'reasonable' will be totally dependent upon the perception of the jurors,,,, there is evidence of a PURSUIT by someone with a gun, thats a start wow, you really never heard of a circumstantial case? or convictions based upon circumstantial evidence? oh well,,, well, unless we stop putting away anyone that didnt have an EYEWITNESS to the moment they committed the crime we are gonna have to rely pretty heavily on how physical evidence available ties into CIRCUMSTANTIAL evidence and reasonability,,, |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
but when talking about evidence 'pointing' to trayvon as aggressor, I just keep looking for what evidence there is besides that someone fighting him was injured? Actually that is the best evidence that can exist.
I can defend myself without striking you. I cannot attack you without striking you. really? how does one defend themself if unarmed from a person with a gun?....without striking them , I mean,,, |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic:
The Stand Your Ground Case
|
|
there are other criminal charges beside murder
I am really happy you are wrong. If a jury convicts with an absence of physical evidence its the judges job to call a mistrial.
and they dont have to be 'proven', just proven beyond a reasonable doubt that word 'reasonable' will be totally dependent upon the perception of the jurors,,,, there is evidence of a PURSUIT by someone with a gun, thats a start wow, you really never heard of a circumstantial case? or convictions based upon circumstantial evidence? oh well,,, |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
previously it was written that this witness was walking his dog Nope mixing up witnesses. The "John" witness is a grown man, not a child.
nope, Im pretty clear in THESE threads, it was posted that a man 'john' had been walking his dog, saw the dispute( at that time he only saw a portion of it) and was telling the boy to stop when his dog got loose and he ran after him and then went inside to call 911 as it turns out though, there was a LITTLE boy to whom this happened and his sisters call to 911 is one of the recordings released and transcripts available but NOW, in THIS thread, the man 'john' was inside his house just watching the whole thing and giving a blow by blow a recording that hasnt been released apparently, because he wants to remain anonymous? ....lol well, we will see if it ever surfaces,,,, who said anything about evidence I was pointing out the inconsistency in some of the reasons people are giving to believe Zimmerman,,, I bet we will, inconsistency is a pet peeve of mine actually and it exists in most mingle threads but when talking about evidence 'pointing' to trayvon as aggressor, I just keep looking for what evidence there is besides that someone fighting him was injured? and I keep getting inconsistent answers,,,,from some posters,,, |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
previously it was written that this witness was walking his dog Nope mixing up witnesses. The "John" witness is a grown man, not a child.
nope, Im pretty clear in THESE threads, it was posted that a man 'john' had been walking his dog, saw the dispute( at that time he only saw a portion of it) and was telling the boy to stop when his dog got loose and he ran after him and then went inside to call 911 as it turns out though, there was a LITTLE boy to whom this happened and his sisters call to 911 is one of the recordings released and transcripts available but NOW, in THIS thread, the man 'john' was inside his house just watching the whole thing and giving a blow by blow a recording that hasnt been released apparently, because he wants to remain anonymous? ....lol well, we will see if it ever surfaces,,,, who said anything about evidence I was pointing out the inconsistency in some of the reasons people are giving to believe Zimmerman,,, |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic:
The Stand Your Ground Case
|
|
yes, illegal touch will be the hard thing to prove
Again you fail. Past illegal touch cannot be used to PROVE current illegal touch. Only the evidence gathered in THIS case can be applied to showing in THIS case a person was committing a crime.
until or unless circumstantial evidence of lies on Zimmermans part and a past of 'illegal touch' in Zimmermans past tie together circumstantially to hold him accountable Civil it might be enough, Criminal not even close. not quite past history is often used to prove CHARACTER of a defendant, it can tie in very well in a criminal case,,,, remember the domestic abuse calls being used against OJ? remember past allegations of sexual misconduct being used against MJ? yes, history of behavior goes towards character and character can be a big part of how REASONABLE someones action seems,,, ... and who supported OJ. there are other criminal charges beside murder and they dont have to be 'proven', just proven beyond a reasonable doubt that word 'reasonable' will be totally dependent upon the perception of the jurors,,,, there is evidence of a PURSUIT by someone with a gun, thats a start |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic:
The Stand Your Ground Case
|
|
yes, illegal touch will be the hard thing to prove
Again you fail. Past illegal touch cannot be used to PROVE current illegal touch. Only the evidence gathered in THIS case can be applied to showing in THIS case a person was committing a crime.
until or unless circumstantial evidence of lies on Zimmermans part and a past of 'illegal touch' in Zimmermans past tie together circumstantially to hold him accountable Civil it might be enough, Criminal not even close. not quite past history is often used to prove CHARACTER of a defendant, it can tie in very well in a criminal case,,,, remember the domestic abuse calls being used against OJ? remember past allegations of sexual misconduct being used against MJ? yes, history of behavior goes towards character and character can be a big part of how REASONABLE someones action seems,,, ... and who supported OJ. PEOPLE around the country who had gotten fed up with police misconduct in their communities,, basically,,, |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
previously it was written that this witness was walking his dog Nope mixing up witnesses. The "John" witness is a grown man, not a child.
nope, Im pretty clear in THESE threads, it was posted that a man 'john' had been walking his dog, saw the dispute( at that time he only saw a portion of it) and was telling the boy to stop when his dog got loose and he ran after him and then went inside to call 911 as it turns out though, there was a LITTLE boy to whom this happened and his sisters call to 911 is one of the recordings released and transcripts available but NOW, in THIS thread, the man 'john' was inside his house just watching the whole thing and giving a blow by blow a recording that hasnt been released apparently, because he wants to remain anonymous? ....lol well, we will see if it ever surfaces,,,, |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
i still have yet to why this kid was shot. was he breaking into someones home/car/doghouse? it sounded to me that zimmerman thought he looked "something". so, a kid is dead because A: zimmerman was suspicious of this kid. B: said he " 'could' be on drugs" C: The boy was unarmed. D: Zimmerman says "these a$$holes always get away" E: confronts the kid after being warned not to. (by the police) if this same guy confronted any one of you a 12:30 at night, would you not be a little concerned? At 12:30 at night if someone was following me I would call 911. i never called 911 in my life... even when someone was chasing me... that is not an option for most youths of today, because of the gangster mentality. and it clearly is not a usable defence in this situation. as you know, he was talking with his girl when everything went down. And you are not a 17 year old. Sing followed by someone. How do you know he had a "gangster mentality"? If he did have that mentality then it's possible Martin was the aggressor and initiated the fight. Isn't that what gangsters do? gangsters dont usually 'run' away though,,,just saying,,, |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic:
The Stand Your Ground Case
|
|
yes, illegal touch will be the hard thing to prove
Again you fail. Past illegal touch cannot be used to PROVE current illegal touch. Only the evidence gathered in THIS case can be applied to showing in THIS case a person was committing a crime.
until or unless circumstantial evidence of lies on Zimmermans part and a past of 'illegal touch' in Zimmermans past tie together circumstantially to hold him accountable Civil it might be enough, Criminal not even close. not quite past history is often used to prove CHARACTER of a defendant, it can tie in very well in a criminal case,,,, remember the domestic abuse calls being used against OJ? remember past allegations of sexual misconduct being used against MJ? yes, history of behavior goes towards character and character can be a big part of how REASONABLE someones action seems,,, yeah, POLICE misconduct can kill a case all the more reason they should be dotting their I's and crossing their T's,,,,,,,to back up what they claim,,,, |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
msharmony
on
Mon 03/26/12 02:39 PM
|
|
I dont believe that is true unless it can be proven there was an ATTACK actually initiated by Treyvon. If Treyvon were shot in the act of defending HIMSELF with his fists from an attack by someone carrying a gun, there is much more than a civil case. This does not jive with the main witness account. That is simply the single most important thing. A person is not defending themselves when they are on top attacking someone screaming for help.
Just doesn't happen. No amount of spin can make that more palatable. excuse me? there were about 7 witnesses, what exactly constitutes which one is the 'main' witness? The fight took place immediately behind his house. He saw the whole thing and was describing it to the police real time. previously it was written that this witness was walking his dog and going to go inside to call 911,,,(turns out THAT witness was actually a young boy who only said he saw someone laying on the ground BEFORE the gunshot, not that he saw TWO people fighting) now he was inside watching the whole time,,,,interesting,,, |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
msharmony
on
Mon 03/26/12 02:40 PM
|
|
i still have yet to why this kid was shot. was he breaking into someones home/car/doghouse? it sounded to me that zimmerman thought he looked "something". so, a kid is dead because A: zimmerman was suspicious of this kid. B: said he " 'could' be on drugs" C: The boy was unarmed. D: Zimmerman says "these a$$holes always get away" E: confronts the kid after being warned not to. (by the police) if this same guy confronted any one of you a 12:30 at night, would you not be a little concerned? a) Not a crime b) The kid was suspended for drugs, so that's very possible. c) So? d) So? e) Zimmerman says that didn't happen. He was on his way back to his truck after he lost sight of Trayvon. The 911 tape shows that he was concerned for his own safety at that point. He wasn't looking for a confrontation, he was following Trayvon so that the police could find him for questioning. any DA would show him to be on a mission, to kill that kid. the jury would eat that up, because it shows a pattern of thought of him stalking the boy. and thats just basic information, not the real info the the lawyers will have. So you are saying that Zimmerman should be put on trial, because a believable story can be told that implicates him, despite the fact that it's not supported by the evidence? There is some evidence that I'm interested in hearing, namely, wounds on Trayvon. If Trayvon is uninjured other than one gunshot wound, then that would indicate that he was the aggressor, wouldn't it? it is supported by Zimmermans own words that he was following the boy supported by his words that he viewed Trayvon as an AHOLE who was going to GET AWAY that makes it a very REASONABLE possibility that he was the aggressor couple that with his PAST incidences of DOCUMENTED aggression,,,and it makes a VERY good case for him as the aggressor and , if he is the aggressor, whether he left bruises or not, he is in the wrong just because an aggressor gets whooped doesnt make him any less the aggressor/initiator/ responsible party |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I dont believe that is true unless it can be proven there was an ATTACK actually initiated by Treyvon. If Treyvon were shot in the act of defending HIMSELF with his fists from an attack by someone carrying a gun, there is much more than a civil case. This does not jive with the main witness account. That is simply the single most important thing. A person is not defending themselves when they are on top attacking someone screaming for help.
Just doesn't happen. No amount of spin can make that more palatable. excuse me? there were about 7 witnesses, what exactly constitutes which one is the 'main' witness? The fight took place immediately behind his house. He saw the whole thing and was describing it to the police real time. uhuh, but you havent heard the tape? interesting .. well, we will see what surfaces,,, |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic:
The Stand Your Ground Case
|
|
yes, illegal touch will be the hard thing to prove
Again you fail. Past illegal touch cannot be used to PROVE current illegal touch. Only the evidence gathered in THIS case can be applied to showing in THIS case a person was committing a crime.
until or unless circumstantial evidence of lies on Zimmermans part and a past of 'illegal touch' in Zimmermans past tie together circumstantially to hold him accountable Civil it might be enough, Criminal not even close. not quite past history is often used to prove CHARACTER of a defendant, it can tie in very well in a criminal case,,,, remember the domestic abuse calls being used against OJ? remember past allegations of sexual misconduct being used against MJ? yes, history of behavior goes towards character and character can be a big part of how REASONABLE someones action seems,,, |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I dont believe that is true unless it can be proven there was an ATTACK actually initiated by Treyvon. If Treyvon were shot in the act of defending HIMSELF with his fists from an attack by someone carrying a gun, there is much more than a civil case. This does not jive with the main witness account. That is simply the single most important thing. A person is not defending themselves when they are on top attacking someone screaming for help.
Just doesn't happen. No amount of spin can make that more palatable. excuse me? there were about 7 witnesses, what exactly constitutes which one is the 'main' witness? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I dont believe that is true unless it can be proven there was an ATTACK actually initiated by Treyvon. If Treyvon were shot in the act of defending HIMSELF with his fists from an attack by someone carrying a gun, there is much more than a civil case. This does not jive with the main witness account. That is simply the single most important thing. A person is not defending themselves when they are on top attacking someone screaming for help.
Just doesn't happen. No amount of spin can make that more palatable. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I dont believe that is true unless it can be proven there was an ATTACK actually initiated by Treyvon. If Treyvon were shot in the act of defending HIMSELF with his fists from an attack by someone carrying a gun, there is much more than a civil case. This does not jive with the main witness account. That is simply the single most important thing. A person is not defending themselves when they are on top attacking someone screaming for help.
Just doesn't happen. No amount of spin can make that more palatable. |
|
|
|
|
Previous
