After the verdict was read the tv showed pics of a lot of outstanding citizens. They were out standing on this corner, out standing on that corner, out standing in the middle of the street.
On Mon, Jul 15, 2013 at 8:02 AM, Keith In Tampa <[email protected]>wrote: > Agreed Bruce, the Defense waived the "Stand Your Ground" hearing, but the > "Stand Your Ground" Florida Statute may in fact become a very important > factor if in fact the Martin family chooses to pursue civil remedies > against Zimmerman.....The Stand Your Ground statute should prevent any > viable civil litigation. > > On Mon, Jul 15, 2013 at 9:00 AM, Bruce Majors <[email protected]>wrote: > >> Sorry, the Zimmerman Case Still Has Nothing to Do With 'Stand Your >> Ground'<http://reason.com/blog/2013/07/14/sorry-the-zimmerman-case-still-has-nothi> >> >> Jacob Sullum <http://reason.com/people/jacob-sullum/all>|Jul. 14, 2013 >> 11:12 am >> >> [image: Video via The Orlando Sentinel]Video via The Orlando SentinelThe >> story that George Zimmerman told about his fight with Trayvon Martin, the >> one that yesterday persuaded a jury to >> acquit<http://reason.com/blog/2013/07/13/george-zimmerman-not-guilty>him >> of second-degree murder and manslaughter, never had anything to do with the >> right to stand your ground when attacked in a public place. Knocked down >> and pinned to the ground by Martin, Zimmerman would not have had an >> opportunity to escape as Martin hit him and knocked his head against the >> concrete. The duty to retreat therefore was irrelevant. The initial >> decision not to arrest Zimmerman, former Sanford, Florida, Police Chief >> Bill Lee >> said<http://reason.com/blog/2013/07/11/former-sanford-police-chief-says-stand-y> >> last >> week (as paraphrased by CNN), "had nothing to do with Florida's >> controversial 'Stand Your Ground' law" because "from an investigative >> standpoint, it was purely a matter of self-defense." And as *The New >> York Times* >> explained<http://reason.com/blog/2013/06/20/the-new-york-times-admits-its-reporting> >> last >> month, "Florida's Stand Your Ground law...has not been invoked in this >> case." The only >> context<http://reason.com/blog/2013/07/03/prosecution-boosts-george-zimmermans-cre> >> in >> which "stand your ground" was mentioned during the trial was as part of the >> prosecution's attempt to undermine Zimmerman's credibility by arguing that >> he lied when he told Fox News host Sean Hannity that he had not heard of >> the law until after the shooting. During his >> rebuttal<http://reason.com/blog/2013/07/12/prosecutions-clincher-trayvon-martin-did> >> on >> Friday, prosecutor John Guy declared, "This case is not about standing your >> ground." >> >> So how did Benjamin Jealous, president of the National Association for >> the Advancement of Colored People, >> respond<http://www.nytimes.com/2013/07/15/us/george-zimmerman-verdict-trayvon-martin.html?hp&_r=0&pagewanted=all> >> to >> Zimmerman's acquittal last night? By announcing that "we will continue to >> fight for the removal of Stand Your Ground laws in every state." And how >> did the *Times*, the same paper that last month noted Zimmerman's >> defense did not rely on the right to stand your ground, describe Florida's >> self-defense law after he was acquitted? This >> way<http://www.nytimes.com/2013/07/15/us/george-zimmerman-verdict-trayvon-martin.html?hp&_r=0&pagewanted=all> >> : >> >> The shooting brought attention to Florida's expansive self-defense laws. >> The laws allow someone with a reasonable fear of great bodily harm or death >> to use lethal force, even if retreating from danger is an option. In court, >> the gunman is given the benefit of the doubt. >> >> While it's true that Florida has eliminated the duty to retreat for >> people attacked in public, that provision played no role in Zimmerman's >> defense or his acquittal. And contrary to what the *Times* seems to >> think, giving the defendant the benefit of the doubt is not unique to >> Florida. It is a basic principle of criminal justice in America. >> >> NPR likewise keeps insisting that the Zimmerman case somehow casts doubt >> on the wisdom or fairness of "stand your ground" laws. In a >> story<http://www.npr.org/blogs/codeswitch/2013/07/09/200480983/the-two-trials-of-george-zimmerman> >> that >> summarized the events leading to Zimmerman's trial, correspondent Gene >> Demby said Florida's "stand-your-ground self-defense law...figured to be a >> major pillar of Zimmerman's defense." No, it didn't, given his description >> of the fight. And once the trial started, it was obvious that "stand your >> ground" had nothing to do with Zimmerman's defense. Yet Greg Allen, the NPR >> reporter covering the trial, said >> this<http://www.npr.org/2013/07/12/201385702/zimmermans-attorney-to-push-self-defense-in-closing-argument> >> last >> week: "Under Florida's Stand Your Ground law, Zimmerman need only convince >> the jury that he was acting in self-defense and was in fear of death or >> great bodily harm to win acquittal." Allen forgot to mention that the fear >> must be reasonable, and he implied that the jury had to be fully convinced >> by Zimmerman's story to acquit him, when in fact it only needed reasonable >> doubt regarding the prosecution's version of events, in which the shooting >> was *not* justified. Most important, Allen conflated "stand your ground" >> with the general principle, accepted even in states that impose a duty to >> retreat in public places, that a reasonable fear your life is in jeopardy >> justifies the use of lethal force. >> >> You might think that, given all we now know about Zimmerman's actual >> defense, critics of "stand your ground" laws would have to find a >> different, more apposite case to illustrate their concerns. Instead they >> just barrel along, citing the same phony >> example<http://reason.com/archives/2013/06/26/george-zimmermans-excuse> again >> and again, without regard to the facts. It does not inspire confidence in >> their argument. >> >> *Addendum:* A few commenters note that the jury >> instructions<http://www.scribd.com/doc/153354467/George-Zimmerman-Trial-Final-Jury-Instructions> >> in >> Zimmerman's case included "stand your ground" language: >> >> 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. >> >> That language is part of the standard jury >> instruction<http://www.floridasupremecourt.org/jury_instructions/instructions.shtml> >> [3.6(f)] >> in cases where the defendant claims his use of deadly force was justified. >> But it is hard to see how it applies to the facts of this case, since >> Zimmerman claimed he was unable to retreat and therefore did not base his >> defense on the right to stand your ground. The fact that a legal provision >> was mentioned in the instructions does not necessarily mean it was relevant >> in reaching a verdict. For example, the instructions also mentioned >> accidental killings and attacks on dwellings, neither of which applies to >> the circumstances of the encounter between Zimmerman and Martin. >> >> [Thanks to Robert Woolley for the NPR links.] >> >> >> On Mon, Jul 15, 2013 at 8:45 AM, Keith In Tampa >> <[email protected]>wrote: >> >>> Good Morning Travis! >>> >>> >>> I thought the trial was interesting, for a number of reasons. First, it >>> showed the American public how most prosecutions work. Where the State >>> (or in federal prosecutions) the government, cheats at every opportunity >>> and chance that they get. In this matter, one small example is how the >>> State had evidence, since February 27th, 2012, of Trayvon Martin's cell >>> phone, which contained pictures and text messages that were clearly >>> exculpatory, and didn't turn it over to the Defense until the first week >>> of June, 2013, and then, they didn't provide the defense with the >>> exculpatory evidence. It took a hired expert paid by the Zimmerman defense >>> to go in using highly techincal software and hardware to retrieve these >>> pictures of marijuana; guns and text messages that showed Trayvon Martin >>> championing himself as a "fighter" using MMA style tactics and having >>> recently been involved in a fight prior to the Zimmerman debacle where he >>> was the victim of being on the ground and pummeled, just as Martin did to >>> Zimmerman the night of February 26th, 2012. >>> >>> I had other points I was going to write, but I started this over an hour >>> ago, and have gotten busy here at work. I will follow up later. >>> >>> Good to see you Travis! >>> >>> >>> On Mon, Jul 15, 2013 at 8:10 AM, Travis <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>>> I found the infomercial of the fat broads in pink tutus dancing in a >>>> circle singing about the virtues of a vacuum cleaner far more interesting >>>> than this entire mess. >>>> >>>> >>>> On Mon, Jul 15, 2013 at 6:53 AM, Keith In Tampa <[email protected] >>>> > wrote: >>>> >>>>> Thanks for sharing this article Michael. As Shafer openly admits, he >>>>> didn't watch the whole trial, (I caught most of it) and I think his >>>>> premise is just a little skewed, but he brings up an excellent point; a >>>>> point that is, (as Plain Ol's calls it) "Spot On". >>>>> >>>>> In my humble opinion, our Nations' States, Counties and >>>>> municipalities all made a grave, serious mistake, like here in Florida, >>>>> when in 1985 we removed the "law" that required and mandated it >>>>> a citizen's duty to use whatever force necessary to resist an illegal or >>>>> wrongful arrest. >>>>> >>>>> This was replaced with statutes that mandated it was illegal to resist >>>>> a law enforcement officer.....In Florida, the minor infraction is titled: >>>>> "resisting an officer without violence" and the felonious charge is >>>>> captioned: "resisting an officer with violence". Both of these statutes, >>>>> but especially the "without violence" charge are "catch-all" criminal >>>>> infractions and hard to prove against. They should be repealed in every >>>>> jurisdiction, and the old laws that required a citizen to resist illegal >>>>> arrests be reinorporated. >>>>> >>>>> I believe that this is just one more check to balance out overly >>>>> aggressive and errant law enforcement officers. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On Sun, Jul 14, 2013 at 9:23 PM, MJ <[email protected]> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> *What Bothered Me Most About the Zimmerman Trial >>>>>> *Butler Shaffer >>>>>> July 14, 2013 >>>>>> >>>>>> I did not watch the entirety of this trial, but I did watch most of >>>>>> the closing arguments. There was a tone to the prosecution’s summation >>>>>> to >>>>>> the jury that left me with the impression that the core of George >>>>>> Zimmerman’s offense was that he was *not* a police officer. While >>>>>> giving lip-service to the propriety -- even the desirability -- of >>>>>> “neighborhood watch” practices, the state’s prosecutors saw a conflict >>>>>> between ordinary people and “official” police officers doing what >>>>>> Zimmerman >>>>>> did. Toward the end of the state’s summation, it was said that if a >>>>>> person >>>>>> wanted to do what George Zimmerman did “you’d better have one of these” >>>>>> (whereupon a photo of a policeman’s badge was projected onto the screen). >>>>>> >>>>>> What the state was implicitly acknowledging -- whether such was its >>>>>> intent or not -- was the real-world dual standard that operates on the >>>>>> streets of virtually every city in every state: a police officer will >>>>>> almost never be held to account, criminally, for wrongs committed against >>>>>> innocent victims. Take the identical facts in the Zimmerman case and >>>>>> change >>>>>> just one: have George Zimmerman be a city-appointed police officer. Is >>>>>> there anyone so naïve as to believe that his actions would have turned >>>>>> him >>>>>> into a criminal defendant? Would the event have even made it into the >>>>>> media -- apart, perhaps, from a blurb news report on page 23 of the local >>>>>> newspaper? Because the state is defined as a system enjoying a monopoly >>>>>> on >>>>>> the use of violence, its practitioners must be shielded from the >>>>>> consequences of their violent acts. >>>>>> >>>>>> I shall not hold my breath awaiting the media babblers addressing >>>>>> this issue. The institutionalized keepers-of-the-questions-to-be-asked >>>>>> would never be so foolish or careless as to allow such a thought to >>>>>> surface. >>>>>> >>>>>> -- >>>>>> -- >>>>>> Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups. >>>>>> For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum >>>>>> >>>>>> * Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/ >>>>>> * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. >>>>>> * Read the latest breaking news, and more. >>>>>> >>>>>> --- >>>>>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google >>>>>> Groups "PoliticalForum" group. >>>>>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, >>>>>> send an email to [email protected]. >>>>>> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> -- >>>>> -- >>>>> Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups. >>>>> For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum >>>>> >>>>> * Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/ >>>>> * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. >>>>> * Read the latest breaking news, and more. >>>>> >>>>> --- >>>>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google >>>>> Groups "PoliticalForum" group. >>>>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send >>>>> an email to [email protected]. >>>>> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>> -- >>>> -- >>>> Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups. >>>> For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum >>>> >>>> * Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/ >>>> * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. >>>> * Read the latest breaking news, and more. >>>> >>>> --- >>>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google >>>> Groups "PoliticalForum" group. >>>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send >>>> an email to [email protected]. >>>> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>> >>> -- >>> -- >>> Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups. >>> For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum >>> >>> * Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/ >>> * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. >>> * Read the latest breaking news, and more. >>> >>> --- >>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google >>> Groups "PoliticalForum" group. >>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send >>> an email to [email protected]. >>> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. >>> >>> >>> >> >> -- >> -- >> Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups. >> For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum >> >> * Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/ >> * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. >> * Read the latest breaking news, and more. >> >> --- >> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups >> "PoliticalForum" group. >> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an >> email to [email protected]. >> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. >> >> >> > > -- > -- > Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups. > For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum > > * Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/ > * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. > * Read the latest breaking news, and more. > > --- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "PoliticalForum" group. > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an > email to [email protected]. > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. > > > -- -- Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups. For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum * Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/ * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. * Read the latest breaking news, and more. --- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "PoliticalForum" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
