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.
BBM. I agree with your first point, that following someone is not necessarily aggression, but how did you arrive at the bolded part?
I arrive at that conclusion based upon the 911 transcript.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ogre
I'm going to guess that in your last sentence you meant to write, ". . . and that I do not believe him to be factually guilty."
Thank you, I have corrected it now.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lyndarn
Hummm I seem to recall Jeb Bush made a very clear statement about SYG ( which is now included in jury instructions on any murder trial claiming self defence) so guess one of the GOP hopefuls who, BTW was responsible for making this THE LAW, given denying fault of any kind by some seems misguided. Since I would assume Jeb Brush would know the actual "Intent of the Law"..No? In Arlington, Jeb Bush says ‘stand your ground’ invalid in Trayvon Martin case
By GROMER JEFFERS JR. gjeffers@dallasnews.com
Staff Writer
“This law does not apply to this particular circumstance,” Bush said after an education panel discussion at the University of Texas at Arlington. “Stand your ground means stand your ground. It doesn’t mean chase after somebody who’s turned their back.”
He was referring to last month’s incident in which 17-year-old Trayvon Martin was pursued by the volunteer and fatally shot in a scuffle.
Stand your ground was never part of the defense because the defense was based purely on self defense.
Stand your ground is irrelevant here, because Zimmerman shot Martin while Martin was on top of Zimmerman.
If you still don't understand it, I'll elaborate further if you'd like.
I arrive at that conclusion based upon the 911 transcript.
Thank you, I have corrected it now.
Stand your ground was never part of the defense because the defense was based purely on self defense.
Stand your ground is irrelevant here, because Zimmerman shot Martin while Martin was on top of Zimmerman.
If you still don't understand it, I'll elaborate further if you'd like.
Also, people seem to forget that while TM was on the phone with Rachel, he told her that he had reached home. This was her testimony. However the encounter occurred at the other end of the complex. This means he became the aggressor, looking for GZ. This is where the whole "following" thing falls apart and was a big factor in GZ's acquittal.
Also, people seem to forget that while TM was on the phone with Rachel, he told her that he had reached home. This was her testimony. However the encounter occurred at the other end of the complex. This means he became the aggressor, looking for GZ. This is where the whole "following" thing falls apart and was a big factor in GZ's acquittal.
I dunno if they "forgot."
They don't know the facts, make up their own "facts,"
or just choose to pick the facts that they like.
Clipping and pasting items doesn't demonstrate that you know what you are talking about. Furthermore insult which you make in many of your posts doesn't demonstrate that know what you are talking about. In fact it's a clear indication of the opposite.
Factual innocence & Factual guilty, are what people "think". It's not based in law (by definition) and therefore irrelevant. It's brought up by those who won't accept verdicts of the court.
But here is a question for you.
Was Zimmerman factually guilty or factually innocent? Why? Please apply your "theory" to the actual topic at hand.
When the items I copied and pasted prove the distinctions I mentioned are used in the legal field, legal court practice, and legal scholarship, and you claimed they were just "mumbo jumbo by those who can't agree with a court ruling," it does prove my point and prove you wrong...unless you want to claim judges and lawyers and legal scholars are incapable of accepting court rulings.
No, factual innocence and factual guilt aren't "just what people think." On the contrary, they are, by definition, what was factual reality, independent and regardless of what people think. And factual guilt and factual innocence ARE based in law, because they rely on legal definitions of crimes as a comparative standard. So, wrong on both counts.
For instance, a serial killer is factually guilty of murdering someone the moment he commits a killing if his actions would meet the legal definition of murder. It doesn't matter if nobody knows he did it, and nobody believes he's a murderer. They might think he's the most upstanding citizen on the planet. He's still factually a murderer. It doesn't matter if he is never indicted because nobody ever finds out he did it. He is still factually a murderer. Legally, he's not, though, until he's convicted of the crime. If he commits the murder in 1975 but doesn't get discovered and convicted until 2015, he was factually guilty of murder for 40 years but only legally guilty from the date of his conviction.
Irrelevant you say? How so? It's in society's best interest to make sure we're not failing to detect and/or falsely acquitting those who are factually guilty. Do you think it would be irrelevant to the murder victim and his/her family if his/her killer was never convicted, even though he factually was guilty of a crime? Would it be irrelevant if factually innocent people ended up on death row falsely convicted and found legally guilty? No, factual status and legal status are both most definitely relevant if we want an effective legal system.
Zimmerman is legally not guilty. Whether he's factually guilty or not, I cannot say for sure, but I can present arguments for both sides.
I arrive at that conclusion based upon the 911 transcript.
Thank you, I have corrected it now.
Stand your ground was never part of the defense because the defense was based purely on self defense.
Stand your ground is irrelevant here, because Zimmerman shot Martin while Martin was on top of Zimmerman.
If you still don't understand it, I'll elaborate further if you'd like.
BBM~~ to address..
Of course it is..because SYG language is in INCLUDED in every Jury Instruction given in any felony murder charge who claims self defence...Mark Omara knew that..so rather than have a hearing on SYG..he opted to go for Self Defence....Did you even watch or follow this trial? I question that from some of your post
Also, people seem to forget that while TM was on the phone with Rachel, he told her that he had reached home. This was her testimony. However the encounter occurred at the other end of the complex. This means he became the aggressor, looking for GZ. This is where the whole "following" thing falls apart and was a big factor in GZ's acquittal.
Fact fail. I'm surprised how many people think they know the details of this case and truly don't.
You got what Rachel said wrong and the location of the killing wrong. It was definitely not on "the other end of the complex."
Furthermore, even if you'd gotten the details correct, your conclusions wouldn't logically follow from those details.
Also, people seem to forget that while TM was on the phone with Rachel, he told her that he had reached home. This was her testimony. However the encounter occurred at the other end of the complex. This means he became the aggressor, looking for GZ. This is where the whole "following" thing falls apart and was a big factor in GZ's acquittal.
Disregarding the validity of your debris field analysis for a moment, which juror stated this was "a big factor in GZ's acquittal?" I hadn't heard that before. Thanks in advance.
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.
