Zimmerman trial - Prosecution finished

You made a general statement about what was being reported in the media in this country. I hadn't really seen that in the news media that I watch. Then I theorized, "Perhaps Cory only watches Fox News? I haven't watched any Fox News since the verdict but I wouldn't be surprised if they we're pushing that kind of thing." It seems that you must have meant social media and I falsely assumed that you meant the news media. When talking about a political slant in the media I've never heard of social media referred to that way, hence my misinterpretation. :wave:

 

It happens. I sometimes, for brevities sake, lump things together. Like News Media and Social Media by just saying media. To me they run together, as they seem to be on the same page, however I can see how someone would see them in a different way. Also I've heard reference to new media as well. I'll try to more clearly name who I am directing my rage at for the day :grumpy:

 

The defense did not argue SYG in the Zimmerman trial. It was never brought up during the trial outside of the media and uninformed individuals.

 

Exactly. SYG wouldn't even be necessary in this case. Even in "duty to retreat" states, you are only obligated to retreat if you are ABLE to retreat. A person pinned down on concrete is unable (and therefore not obligated) to retreat.

 

It's like these folks live in an alternate universe. Stevie Wonder says he won't do a Florida show till SYG is repealed in reference to TM case. Holder brought up the same nonsense. I feel like I've entered the twilight zone. WTH is wrong with people? This isn't genome theory...either SYG was applied or not....it wasn't. What's with all the misdirection?

 

I wonder if Steve Wonder will also boycott the other 23 or so states that have SYG laws as well? Does he not know that SYG has helped african americans too?

How the hell will he know he's in Florida anyway? Can't someone just say "It's really hot in Iowa today Mr. Wonder".

 

This is wrong. Here's an excerpt directly from the jury instructions, clearly and directly citing "stand your ground":

If George Zimmerman was not engaged in an unlawful activity and was attacked in anyplace 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.

While the defense opted not to ask for a "stand your ground" hearing at the outset of the trial, that decision did not negate the relevance of the SYG law and its impact on the trial and the verdict.

Get out of the bubble, clones.

 

I don't know what this means. Is it a Star Wars reference? Something about a sheep? Can you make a cogent argument without resorting to name calling? You almost had it.

 

The Stand Your Ground Law (SYG) provides immunity from criminal charges as well as civil litigation. GZ WAS prosecuted...so to say that he invoked SYG DURING his criminal defense trial on it's face refutes the claim. Now with that said it makes sense that GZ's defense team could reference all or part of the SYG language to demonstrate the absurdity of the prosecutions case...but this in no way demonstrates an invocation of the law as a SYG finding would have prevented the prosecution in the first place. The local newspaper demonstrates this here: Any civil lawsuit vs. George Zimmerman in Trayvon Martin case may hit "stand your ground" obstacle - Orlando Sentinel

 

Because FL passed a Stand Your Ground Law they had to change the directions given to Jurors in any cases such as this. Like you noted, the words stand your ground are in those instructions. Our point is that this was not a Stand Your Ground case. You, correctly for once, noted something from the trial-that SYG was not invoked. That is our point. It was not a SYG case. It was self defense, clearly.

You can say its related all you want, but the fact remains. This was a self-defense case and not one that was explicityly about SYG (hence the defense not invoking the SYG defense).

 

Maybe you will believe it from liberal mouthpiece and Bill Clinton's former Press Secretary...ladies and gentlemen I give you George Stephanopolous of ABC News Explaining

 

Yes, please watch. Also understand that whether or not FL law contained a "duty to retreat" wouldn't have really mattered under the facts of this case, as the evidence indicated Zimmerman was in no position to retreat once he was met with what he believed was the imminent threat of death or serious bodily harm. In other words, even if FL had re-inserted a "duty to retreat" the day before the shooting, the analysis would have been more or less the same.

 

Rich was responding to what was an incorrect assertion that SYG had absolutely nothing to do with the case. He then copied in instructions to the jury that proved the assertion was false. While it is true that the defense didn't use it during the trial, it is false that it had nothing to do and was never brought up at trial. Therefore, Stevie Wonder is not being clueless (or whatever word was used) to say he wouldn't play in Florida again until the law is changed.

 

The point here, and we can agree on this, that this was not a SYG case. I will agree that it was brought up (erroneoulsy) throughout the trial on both sides and in the media.

I never said SW was clueless. In fact I didn't call him a name at all. You pay attention to my posts about as well as you paid attention to the trial :blindfold:

 

Well, Stevie better pick his next tour carefully, because nearly half of all states have no "duty to retreat" laws (aka "stand your ground"), including Stevie's native Michigan. Oh, well...

 

Racist tensions here are nothing like what is reported from the US. Racial tensions here are created in some areas because government overloads certain lower socioeconomic areas with immigrants who are competing for the same welfare dollar and jobs. This incredibly stupid policy is grounded in the proposition that those areas have good welfare services. They do not understand that overloading this areas creates tensions, yet there are areas in this country screaming for them. I work with a refugee agency resettlement agency and country areas want refugees because there is a shortage of workers in those areas, yet the govt still places them in the lower socioeconomic areas.

We do have a first nations issue with the indigenous population that is not unlike the American Indian issue and we are working to give our first nations a place in our constitution. We have spent millions or billions on this. We have had a riot at Cronulla by about 5,000 largely white Australians who reacted very violently to the news that Middle Eastern youth had attacked a life saver at Cronulla Beach. This was largely a Sydney phenomenon and no riot or inkling of a riot occurred elsewhere in Australia. The subsequent inquiry found that the riot was fanned by radio media.

In home State of Queensland (the only real place to live in this country), we have had some heat between Melanesian and Aboriginal groups in lower socio-economic areas, but nothing else and nothing like what I am hearing from the US. We do not have SYG laws here and we have very tight gun control laws. Our legal system is not unlike the US. Zimmerman would have probably been acquitted on self defence (from what I have read) but then prosecuted for being armed in a public place plus (if the weapon was unlicensed) prosecuted for having possession of an unlicensed weapon (there is no way here he would have been licensed). It would be acknowledged that he committed crimes by carrying, but it would also be acknowledged that he could not be expected to suffer a beating to death because of it.

Every country has some sort of minority problem. Most of them are driven or exacerbated by poverty. I suspect that neither parties in this paradigm were "well heeled" or had good jobs. Please correct me if I am wrong. Why you are going to Geelong escapes me. I can only conclude it must be business.

 

Gee, how hard was that?

These kinds of boards tend to attract a lot of dittoheads and it's easy to get caught up on arguing with them. But it does no good. Throughout this thread I've tried to point out facts and issues related to it without taking a hard stance on what I thought should happen. But if you don't vociferously agree with the clones, they scream about "liberal bias" and "didn't you WATCH the trial?" But the very nature of a conservative is to be rigid in one's thinking. No one, especially someone outside the bubble, is going to change their minds. About anything. Conservatives HATE uncertainty, even if they have to cling to stupid and disproved notions in order to remain so. They reminded me of that in this thread, even though I wasn't disagreeing with them (except to point out, as with "stand you ground," that they were factually inaccurate. Even then, they just dig in deeper. Recent academic research has confirmed this. Research they reject, of course!