New Posts
  • Hi there guest! Welcome to PoliticalJack.com. Register for free to join our community?

Apparently Many Who Followed Zimmerman Trial Missed SYG

Minotaur

Governor
Many still seem unaware that SYG was in the Jury Instructions and impacted the verdict. In and effort to set the record straight on SYG and the Zimmerman trial, just so we are all on the same page, where SYG impacted the trial hopefully this clears it up. If you get your hands on the Jury Instruction you can see where SYG cancels out Manslaughter. Additionally, though the 2 jurors who have spoken have not been asked that targeted question, reading both descriptions of Manslaughter and SYG should answer it for you. Manslaughter looks at what you did prior to the killing, SYG only looks at the fight or moment of fear. Bottom line the jury could not even consider manslaughter enough to get past SYG. None of this matters now except that in Florida this still exists and other states have the same issue where they mimic Florida's Amendment and if it is placed in Jury Instructions in your state you probably need to understand this:

"Jurors discussed Florida’s controversial Stand Your Ground self-defense law before rendering their not-guilty verdict in George Zimmerman’s trial, one of the jurors told CNN’s Anderson Cooper.
The jurors struggled with the law and the jury instructions, said the juror, who spoke anonymously and was identified only by her court ID, B37.
“The law became very confusing. It became very confusing,” she told Cooper Monday night. “We had stuff thrown at us. We had the second-degree murder charge, the manslaughter charge, then we had self defense, Stand Your Ground.”
Juror B37 mentioned Stand Your Ground a second time of her own accord, saying the jury ultimately made its not-guilty verdict Saturday night based on the evidence and “because of the heat of the moment and the Stand Your Ground.”

Still, the degree to which Stand Your Ground led to the not-guilty verdict is unclear and in dispute. Cooper never asked B37."

Don't get hung up on that last paragraph as it is not a cancel element it is just what they are not asking. I highlighted it as it is important to note that everything said prior to that points to an answer in Paragraph #2. This is not written in cement as what is missing is no one asked that question but it does represent the complexity of all of this and why a jury may have their hands tied even trying to understand what these conflicts mean during deliberations.

http://www.miamiherald.com/2013/07/16/3502481/juror-we-talked-stand-your-ground.html
 
Last edited:

Bo-4

Senator
Still, the degree to which Stand Your Ground led to the not-guilty verdict is unclear and in dispute. Cooper never asked B37."
Cooper can be really lame at times. The main guys downplaying SYG are Fox News. They repeat it ad nauseam about once every 5 minutes.
 

Minotaur

Governor
Cooper can be really lame at times. The main guys downplaying SYG are Fox News. They repeat it ad nauseam about once every 5 minutes.
Is that where that misinformation is coming from? Figures! Can't they read the jury instructions? LOL
 

ARMCX1

Mayor
Is this what you are referring to?

From the jury instructions:
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.
You convinced me.
 

Minotaur

Governor
Is this what you are referring to?

From the jury instructions:

You convinced me.
An important area of the instructions not to miss is this:

"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. "

This is where you see the biggest conflict with Manslaughter in (a) you can only look at the fight and not what he did and (b) danger need not be actual aka in fear of your life, real, made up, or imagined.
 

Bernard_Fokke

Captain Fokke
Supporting Member
So the SYG is a law, it was a legal shooting.

There were two screw ups here as I see it GZ should have backed off and let the cops handle it and TM ought not to have attacked GZ.

Two wrongs don't make a right however the bottom line is the law found GZ innocent of murder as he did not break a law.

If I were to have someone on top of me pounding me and slamming my head on the concrete I'd fear for my life and empty a clip into my assailant for sure, sixteen or over twenty one if the person is big enough to take a person down and pound them like that they are a life threat.
 

Minotaur

Governor
So the SYG is a law, it was a legal shooting.

There were two screw ups here as I see it GZ should have backed off and let the cops handle it and TM ought not to have attacked GZ.

Two wrongs don't make a right however the bottom line is the law found GZ innocent of murder as he did not break a law.

If I were to have someone on top of me pounding me and slamming my head on the concrete I'd fear for my life and empty a clip into my assailant for sure, sixteen or over twenty one if the person is big enough to take a person down and pound them like that they are a life threat.
The issue is the inability to consider guilt on anyone with manslaughter based on their actions leading up to the death as it forces a jury to focus only on the fight they may well start or force and even then one must just say they feared for their life imagined, real, or fake.
 

JuliefromOhio

President
Supporting Member
So the SYG is a law, it was a legal shooting.

There were two screw ups here as I see it GZ should have backed off and let the cops handle it and TM ought not to have attacked GZ.

Two wrongs don't make a right however the bottom line is the law found GZ innocent of murder as he did not break a law.

If I were to have someone on top of me pounding me and slamming my head on the concrete I'd fear for my life and empty a clip into my assailant for sure, sixteen or over twenty one if the person is big enough to take a person down and pound them like that they are a life threat.
the jury instructions failed to note that SYG/self-defense basically requires the defendant to lie about fearing for his life. what we had in this case was a man who was losing a physical fight and miraculously had the strength, time and opportunity to pull his gun from behind his back and cowardly shoot an unarmed teen-ager.
 

Bernard_Fokke

Captain Fokke
Supporting Member
Please note the blindfold, I consider your stance wrong, however it's a free country and we're all entitled to our opinions.


justice.jpg
 

Corruptbuddha

Governor
Jesus Min...if I see yet another Zimmerman, Martin or SYG post I will have to drop you into ignore.

No big deal to you, I'm sure....but I'm so sick and tired of it.
 

Wahbooz

Governor
So the SYG is a law, it was a legal shooting.

There were two screw ups here as I see it GZ should have backed off and let the cops handle it and TM ought not to have attacked GZ.

Two wrongs don't make a right however the bottom line is the law found GZ innocent of murder as he did not break a law.

If I were to have someone on top of me pounding me and slamming my head on the concrete I'd fear for my life and empty a clip into my assailant for sure, sixteen or over twenty one if the person is big enough to take a person down and pound them like that they are a life threat.
That is assuming that TM actually attacked GZ, was "on top of him pounding him and slamming his head on the concrete". Problem is we don't know that, those are GZ's words, but the autopsy report does not seem to support that.
 

Dino

Russian Asset
Many still seem unaware that SYG was in the Jury Instructions and impacted the verdict. In and effort to set the record straight on SYG and the Zimmerman trial, just so we are all on the same page, where SYG impacted the trial hopefully this clears it up. If you get your hands on the Jury Instruction you can see where SYG cancels out Manslaughter. Additionally, though the 2 jurors who have spoken have not been asked that targeted question, reading both descriptions of Manslaughter and SYG should answer it for you. Manslaughter looks at what you did prior to the killing, SYG only looks at the fight or moment of fear. Bottom line the jury could not even consider manslaughter enough to get past SYG. None of this matters now except that in Florida this still exists and other states have the same issue where they mimic Florida's Amendment and if it is placed in Jury Instructions in your state you probably need to understand this:

"Jurors discussed Florida’s controversial Stand Your Ground self-defense law before rendering their not-guilty verdict in George Zimmerman’s trial, one of the jurors told CNN’s Anderson Cooper.
The jurors struggled with the law and the jury instructions, said the juror, who spoke anonymously and was identified only by her court ID, B37.
“The law became very confusing. It became very confusing,” she told Cooper Monday night. “We had stuff thrown at us. We had the second-degree murder charge, the manslaughter charge, then we had self defense, Stand Your Ground.”
Juror B37 mentioned Stand Your Ground a second time of her own accord, saying the jury ultimately made its not-guilty verdict Saturday night based on the evidence and “because of the heat of the moment and the Stand Your Ground.”

Still, the degree to which Stand Your Ground led to the not-guilty verdict is unclear and in dispute. Cooper never asked B37."

Don't get hung up on that last paragraph as it is not a cancel element it is just what they are not asking. I highlighted it as it is important to note that everything said prior to that points to an answer in Paragraph #2. This is not written in cement as what is missing is no one asked that question but it does represent the complexity of all of this and why a jury may have their hands tied even trying to understand what these conflicts mean during deliberations.

http://www.miamiherald.com/2013/07/16/3502481/juror-we-talked-stand-your-ground.html
I thought the rule was "if you start the fight you don't receive any protection under stand your ground"? I guess that stopped applying lately.
 

NinaS

Senator
Supporting Member
the jury instructions failed to note that SYG/self-defense basically requires the defendant to lie about fearing for his life. what we had in this case was a man who was losing a physical fight and miraculously had the strength, time and opportunity to pull his gun from behind his back and cowardly shoot an unarmed teen-ager.
What I don't understand is how/why they put that SYG instruction in there as in this case Zimmerman decided not to use the SYG in a pretrial hearing. Shouldn't the judge have left that out? Because he pursued Trayvon even Jeb Bush (who got that SYG crap in FL) said it would NOT apply in this case because of Zimmerman's actions. Then why in hell did it? I can't figure out why the prosecution didn't raise holy hell.
 

NinaS

Senator
Supporting Member
I thought the rule was "if you start the fight you don't receive any protection under stand your ground"? I guess that stopped applying lately.
How about "If the stalker reaches into his pocket and you FEAR FOR YOUR LIFE as he may be pulling out a gun....Trayvon Marton would have been able to use the SYG law if some cowardly fat ass puke hadn't silenced him so he couldn't tell his side.

I see you continue to dismiss the FACT that Zimemrman was reaching in his pocket and anyone who'd been followed would naturally have thought he may be reaching for a weapon. and had the right to defend himself.
 

NinaS

Senator
Supporting Member
Many still seem unaware that SYG was in the Jury Instructions and impacted the verdict. In and effort to set the record straight on SYG and the Zimmerman trial, just so we are all on the same page, where SYG impacted the trial hopefully this clears it up. If you get your hands on the Jury Instruction you can see where SYG cancels out Manslaughter. Additionally, though the 2 jurors who have spoken have not been asked that targeted question, reading both descriptions of Manslaughter and SYG should answer it for you. Manslaughter looks at what you did prior to the killing, SYG only looks at the fight or moment of fear. Bottom line the jury could not even consider manslaughter enough to get past SYG. None of this matters now except that in Florida this still exists and other states have the same issue where they mimic Florida's Amendment and if it is placed in Jury Instructions in your state you probably need to understand this:

"Jurors discussed Florida’s controversial Stand Your Ground self-defense law before rendering their not-guilty verdict in George Zimmerman’s trial, one of the jurors told CNN’s Anderson Cooper.
The jurors struggled with the law and the jury instructions, said the juror, who spoke anonymously and was identified only by her court ID, B37.
“The law became very confusing. It became very confusing,” she told Cooper Monday night. “We had stuff thrown at us. We had the second-degree murder charge, the manslaughter charge, then we had self defense, Stand Your Ground.”
Juror B37 mentioned Stand Your Ground a second time of her own accord, saying the jury ultimately made its not-guilty verdict Saturday night based on the evidence and “because of the heat of the moment and the Stand Your Ground.”

Still, the degree to which Stand Your Ground led to the not-guilty verdict is unclear and in dispute. Cooper never asked B37."

Don't get hung up on that last paragraph as it is not a cancel element it is just what they are not asking. I highlighted it as it is important to note that everything said prior to that points to an answer in Paragraph #2. This is not written in cement as what is missing is no one asked that question but it does represent the complexity of all of this and why a jury may have their hands tied even trying to understand what these conflicts mean during deliberations.

http://www.miamiherald.com/2013/07/16/3502481/juror-we-talked-stand-your-ground.html

They don't want to discuss the law, Mary...they want to keep pretending that George Zimmerman is an honorable man and HAD to kill a 17 yr old because he was so scared he was going to die himself. They've dismissed the fact that he was going against the rules of the Neighborhood watch that he obviously had to sign and they dismiss the fact that he had little to be scared of since he was the one who was armed and his injuries were not even bad enough he had to go have them looked at until the next day. This whole thing has been a farce as well as him lame "rescue" story. That reeks to high heaven.
 

Dino

Russian Asset
How about "If the stalker reaches into his pocket and you FEAR FOR YOUR LIFE as he may be pulling out a gun....Trayvon Marton would have been able to use the SYG law if some cowardly fat ass puke hadn't silenced him so he couldn't tell his side.

I see you continue to dismiss the FACT that Zimemrman was reaching in his pocket and anyone who'd been followed would naturally have thought he may be reaching for a weapon. and had the right to defend himself.

That's a lame point, always has been. Trayvon pursued Zimmerman instead of going home. This pathetic crutch has been over used on this page but has no bearing on real life.

Of course, here it's simply used to dodge my point and attempt to cloud a fairly straightforward situation.
 

Wahbooz

Governor
How about "If the stalker reaches into his pocket and you FEAR FOR YOUR LIFE as he may be pulling out a gun....Trayvon Marton would have been able to use the SYG law if some cowardly fat ass puke hadn't silenced him so he couldn't tell his side.

I see you continue to dismiss the FACT that Zimemrman was reaching in his pocket and anyone who'd been followed would naturally have thought he may be reaching for a weapon. and had the right to defend himself.
Nina, this is all bullshit. There is no evidence, no proof that Martin either pursued or attacked Zimmerman, certainly not from the autopsy report. Simple fact that people ignore.
 

Dino

Russian Asset
Nina, this is all bullshit. There is no evidence, no proof that Martin either pursued or attacked Zimmerman, certainly not from the autopsy report. Simple fact that people ignore.
Sorry, you are NOT free to make up your own facts which explain how the verdict was wrong. You are free to your own opinion, but not your own facts.
 
Top