Yuri Zhivago
Mayor
In Florida, if you’re a Neighborhood Watch captain you can shoot an unarmed person you suspect to be “suspicious looking,’” and as long as no one is around to witness it, you’re account of what happened will prevail in court.
lesson learned
- Thread starter Yuri Zhivago
- Start date
Yuri Zhivago
Mayor
for idiots :
In Florida, if you’re a Neighborhood Watch captain you can shoot an unarmed person you suspect to be “suspicious looking,’” and as long as no one is around to witness it, you’re account of what happened will prevail in court.
In Florida, if you’re a Neighborhood Watch captain you can shoot an unarmed person you suspect to be “suspicious looking,’” and as long as no one is around to witness it, you’re account of what happened will prevail in court.
Last edited:
Abatis
Council Member
Except there were witnesses (called by the prosecution at trial) who did see the altercation and supported Zimmerman's account of events.
The physical evidence and witness statements supported Zimmerman then (Feb, 26, 2012) and were never controverted and according to Florida law, 776.032(2), the police "may not arrest the person for using force unless it determines that there is probable cause that the force that was used was unlawful."
The decision of the Sanford police to not arrest Zimmerman was correct then and has been vindicated by this verdict.
The prosecution was a result of political pressure, no grand jury was empaneled and the actual charges filed were outrageous abuse of prosecutorial discretion . . .
There should certainly be a federal civil rights prosecution in this case, it should be for prosecutorial misconduct violating Zimmerman's constitutional and civil rights.
The race agitators and left leaning anti-gun / anti-self defense agenda driven media should be charged as co-conspirators. They set the false SYG / self defense narrative for this case and that instilled a mindset in those too lazy to examine the case from an evidentiary and legal standpoint.
Those whipped-up emotions are still pushing people to demonstrate profound ignorance / delusion about this case and your statements are just more proof of that and prove you to be the idiot.
Dino
Russian Asset
Ooohh, don't forget the phone calls or the eyewitness testimony also.
(I love it when the details get left out of this by the simple)
Yuri Zhivago
Mayor
Yuri Zhivago
Mayor
which eyewitnesses , habitually lying ,manipulating hateful, brainless wonder?
who saw the whole 4 minutes from start end? start your well know obfusactions now.
Arkady
President
It takes a special kind of imbecile to have an ode to the Bill of Rights in his sig while calling for the prosecution of people and the press for exercising their first amendment rights. How you even manage to dress yourself with such brain damage is beyond me.
Yuri Zhivago
Mayor
let's try again, last time, promise:
What the verdict says-is that you can go looking for trouble in Florida, with a gun and a bias towards "punks", and you can find that trouble, and you can act upon that trouble in a way that leaves another guy dead, and none of it guarantees that you will be convicted of a crime.
This verdict says as much about Florida's judicial and legislative senses as it does about Zim conduct that night.
This verdict would not have occurred in every state.
But it occurred in Florida, a tragic event that leaves a young man's untimely death unrequited under state law.
Abatis
Council Member
And to that I will quote the jury instructions (emphasis added):
"An issue in this case is whether George Zimmerman acted in self-defense. It is a defense to the crime of Second Degree Murder, and the lesser included offense of Manslaughter, if the death of Trayvon Martin resulted from the justifiable use of deadly force. . . .
A person is justified in using deadly force if he reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself.
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. . . .
George Zimmerman has entered a plea of not guilty. This means you must presume or believe George Zimmerman is innocent. The presumption stays with George Zimmerman as to each material allegation in the Information through each stage of the trial unless it has been overcome by the evidence to the exclusion of and beyond a reasonable doubt.
To overcome George Zimmerman’s presumption of innocence, the State has the burden of proving the crime with which George Zimmerman is charged was committed and George Zimmerman is the person who committed the crime.
George Zimmerman is not required to present evidence or prove anything.
Whenever the words "reasonable doubt" are used you must consider the following:
A reasonable doubt is not a mere possible doubt, a speculative, imaginary or forced doubt. Such a doubt must not influence you to return a verdict of not guilty if you have an abiding conviction of guilt. On the other hand if, after carefully considering, comparing and weighing all the evidence, there is not an abiding conviction of guilt, or, if having a conviction, it is one which is not stable but one which wavers and vacillates, then the charge is not proved beyond every reasonable doubt and you must find George Zimmerman not guilty because the doubt is reasonable.
It is to the evidence introduced in this trial, and to it alone, that you are to look for that proof.
A reasonable doubt as to the guilt of George Zimmerman may arise from the evidence, conflict in the evidence, or the lack of evidence.
If you have a reasonable doubt, you should find George Zimmerman not guilty."
A person is justified in using deadly force if he reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself.
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. . . .
George Zimmerman has entered a plea of not guilty. This means you must presume or believe George Zimmerman is innocent. The presumption stays with George Zimmerman as to each material allegation in the Information through each stage of the trial unless it has been overcome by the evidence to the exclusion of and beyond a reasonable doubt.
To overcome George Zimmerman’s presumption of innocence, the State has the burden of proving the crime with which George Zimmerman is charged was committed and George Zimmerman is the person who committed the crime.
George Zimmerman is not required to present evidence or prove anything.
Whenever the words "reasonable doubt" are used you must consider the following:
A reasonable doubt is not a mere possible doubt, a speculative, imaginary or forced doubt. Such a doubt must not influence you to return a verdict of not guilty if you have an abiding conviction of guilt. On the other hand if, after carefully considering, comparing and weighing all the evidence, there is not an abiding conviction of guilt, or, if having a conviction, it is one which is not stable but one which wavers and vacillates, then the charge is not proved beyond every reasonable doubt and you must find George Zimmerman not guilty because the doubt is reasonable.
It is to the evidence introduced in this trial, and to it alone, that you are to look for that proof.
A reasonable doubt as to the guilt of George Zimmerman may arise from the evidence, conflict in the evidence, or the lack of evidence.
If you have a reasonable doubt, you should find George Zimmerman not guilty."
The jury honored its duty to consider Zimmerman innocent and rely on the case presented to them to decide instead that guilt was proven.
It ignored the emotional appeals and weighed the evidence (or lack thereof) and rendered the proper verdict.
Your position requires us to stand the entire foundation of the criminal justice system on its head.
Abatis
Council Member
Does the 1st Amendment cover malicious, slanderous and prejudicial / inciteful statements?
Abatis
Council Member
No, that is prejudice fueled invective totally divorced from the case at hand and the law . . . This verdict says that juries demand the government prove the charges it files on people and that they will do their duty in analyzing that evidence.
Perhaps. Florida respects the rights of self defense for its citizens. Florida statute 776 can be revisited if the citizens demand it.
Justice is served by the process. Justice isn't served just by getting the outcome you advocated for, neither is it denied by a verdict your prejudice forces you to disagree with.
Arkady
President
The first amendment covers the behavior you want prosecuted.
Bo-4
Senator
Your "idiot version" didn't appear to have sunk in ;-)
Yuri Zhivago
Mayor
yes, Bo, this Abati keeps talking about things i haven't even mentioned, i was just talking about the way if i want to kill somebody to do it in Florida with impunity
