Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Wow, I watched the entire video. Frightening! It's hard to believe that a man was told by 911 fourteen times to stay inside his house and he went outside and shot 2 men to death ... and then people applauded him for taking 2 lives? What if someone is lost? What if you get the wrong address and drive up to a home, climb up the steps and someone shoots you? "I was only trying to protect my home" wouldn't sound good enough to me if I were bleeding to death. It's supposed to be a good law to protect citizens when threatened with deadly force, not permission to hunt people.
Chilling isn't it? There was no reason for him to do what he did. If he felt compelled to do something, he could have kept them there until the police arrived. This law is nuts!
There are lots of trials where the incident has been widely reported and the public has formed opinions. That does not mean that a jury cannot form an opinion based on the evidence presented.
That's what they are clearly instructed to do. If I'm not mistaken, I think that that they are also instructed not to discuss, watch or read coverage of the case while they are serving as jurors.
You can't trust everything that is reported. How does bruising occur when you are dead? Bruises only show up when the body is healing and alive.
Incorrect. Bruises that occur prior to/at the time of death "bloom", or show up in a day or two. It is also possible to bruise a dead person.
Quote:
... in the dead, a further examination one or two days after the original autopsy may disclose bruises which were not previously evident as well as revealing more distinctly bruises which previously appeared faint. This may be particularly the case with "fingerpad bruises" produced by handgrips.
Chilling isn't it? There was no reason for him to do what he did. If he felt compelled to do something, he could have kept them there until the police arrived. This law is nuts!
I think the interpretation of it is crazy, which is why it should be clarified. It's like all those people who keep saying they have every right to confront & question me. I guess that means I have every right to feel threatened by them and pull out a gun. (and the violence goes on and on and on....)
I can't believe this guy got off and was made a hero!! He was told 14 times not to go outside, and was not charged. If that's the standard, Zimmerman is going to go free.
QUOTE=sickofnyc;23655815]There's more cases than this case that is giving the law an ugly face.''I think the audio of another STG incident is within this video.
... she filed for a restraining order against him. And he filed against her. In the end, they were told to stay the hell away from each other.
I never heard about him filing against her. Please document.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jazzarama
Geez, do you think a gov reads every bill sent to him ? He might Think he knows what the law was Supposed to do in a general way, but not what the words mean in a court.
"The law as written in Florida ... does not require a person to retreat to prevent a possible altercation; and it does not address the question of whether it is OK to chase down someone who has been perceived as a threat. In fact, last Wednesday, a Florida judge threw out the second-degree murder case against a man who chased a burglar more than a block and stabbed him to death. Miami-Dade Circuit Judge Beth Bloom cited "stand your ground."
Don't know if this has already been responded to, but I sure as hell hope the gov. knows exactly what the law says; that either s/he or his/her staff has read it through completely and knows what the ramifications are.
That's what they are clearly instructed to do. If I'm not mistaken, I think that that they are also instructed not to discuss, watch or read coverage of the case while they are serving as jurors.
Well, I guess I just got out of jury duty, since they'd see all these posts and the defense would disqualify me. However, I'm not sure how thorough they are in investigating the backgrounds of the jurists in a homicide trial. I mean, let's say someone has his mind made up that, no matter what he sees or hears, he's going to convict Zimmerman or acquit him. I don't know how anyone would know that, although I realize there are professionals who specialize in jury selection.
My point was that some people were more apt to believe the stories posted about Zimmerman, some believe the Martin side. The truth will most likely lie somewhere in the middle.
(And FYI - we do know why he was suspended: pot.)
A funeral director is NOT a trained medical professional. But you're right about one thing: I don't know why you're even answering this.
Trayvon was suspended b/c he had a bag with marijuana residue on it in his posession.
Some funeral directors acutally are the county coroner as well. Probably not so much any more. In any event, they see a lot of bodies.
Quote:
Originally Posted by sickofnyc
That's what they are clearly instructed to do. If I'm not mistaken, I think that that they are also instructed not to discuss, watch or read coverage of the case while they are serving as jurors.
Correct. I have a friend who was on the Michael Jackson child molestation jury. He was not sequestered, but he couldn't talk about the case, either.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
