What's new
By:
USCHO Fan Forum

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

  • The USCHO Fan Forum has migrated to a new plaform, xenForo. Most of the function of the forum should work in familiar ways. Please note that you can switch between light and dark modes by clicking on the gear icon in the upper right of the main menu bar. We are hoping that this new platform will prove to be faster and more reliable. Please feel free to explore its features.

Nice planet 4: Take 2. Action!

  • Thread starter Thread starter Priceless
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Re: Nice planet 4: Take 2. Action!

ScoobyDoo said:
Sure it was an issue. Just because that defense wasn't used doesn't mean it wasn't considered and certainly doesn't mean it wasn't relevant. Ha, I just posted today that the verdict was correct so get off your mad grandpa rant.

Looks like the same horrible prosecutors are involved in the Dunn case. He'll walk.

http://www.firstcoastnews.com/news/...ey-and-De-La-Rionda-talk-about-Zimmerman-case
Click to expand...

Got anything to back that up? The fact that this defense may have been considered and then rejected is the slim hypothetical on which you and the rest of the chorus continue your "stand your ground" lamentations? I was pleased to hear O'Mara say he was planning to continue his effort to get sanctions for the prosecutors. They kept relevant materials from them and then sprung that sleazy "child abuse" sh*t at 7:30AM on the day the case went to the jury. Prosecutors are officers of the court, and shouldn't be involved in putting their thumbs on the scale.

Eureka! I found your post about the verdict. And it just proves what Granny Pio always used to say: "Even a blind hog can find an acorn every now and then." Each of these two profiled the other. Zimmerman, the wannabe cop, profiled Martin as one of the punks who'd been burglarizing the complex. Martin, the wannabe gangster, profiled the pudgy white dude as someone he could take. Bad mistake. He should have just gone on home.
 
Last edited:
Re: Nice planet 4: Take 2. Action!

ScoobyDoo said:
Dead men tell no tales. It's going to be pretty hard to convict him unless they find an impartial eye witness.
Click to expand...
What kind of a gas station has no security cameras checking to see who steals gas. I have to believe the whole thing is recorded.
 
Re: Nice planet 4: Take 2. Action!

SJHovey said:
What kind of a gas station has no security cameras checking to see who steals gas. I have to believe the whole thing is recorded.
Click to expand...
Who are you going to believe: the defense or your own lying eyes?
 
Re: Nice planet 4: Take 2. Action!

Old Pio said:
Got anything to back that up? The fact that this defense may have been considered and then rejected is the slim hypothetical on which you and the rest of the chorus continue your "stand your ground" lamentations? I was pleased to hear O'Mara say he was planning to continue his effort to get sanctions for the prosecutors. They kept relevant materials from them and then sprung that sleazy "child abuse" sh*t at 7:30AM on the day the case went to the jury. Prosecutors are officers of the court, and shouldn't be involved in putting their thumbs on the scale.

Eureka! I found your post about the verdict. And it just proves what Granny Pio always used to say: "Even a blind hog can find an acorn every now and then." Each of these two profiled the other. Zimmerman, the wannabe cop, profiled Martin as one of the punks who'd been burglarizing the complex. Martin, the wannabe gangster, profiled the pudgy white dude as someone he could take. Bad mistake. He should have just gone on home.
Click to expand...

Yep. Here's the difference.

“The defense merely had to establish that there was a perception of risk, of bodily harm, on the part of Mr. Zimmerman for these instructions to be resonant on the part of jurors,” jury consultant Doug Keene told Here & Now. “Under the old law, you were obliged to escape the situation without use of deadly force. Under the new law, you don’t need to establish that.”
Click to expand...

http://hereandnow.wbur.org/2013/07/15/stand-ground-laws

Exactly what I just heard on the boob tube as well. As I understand it the jury instruction from the judge in the Zimmerman case had Stand Your Ground elements to it.
 
Re: Nice planet 4: Take 2. Action!

ScoobyDoo said:
Yep. Here's the difference.



http://hereandnow.wbur.org/2013/07/15/stand-ground-laws

Exactly what I just heard on the boob tube as well. As I understand it the jury instruction from the judge in the Zimmerman case had Stand Your Ground elements to it.
Click to expand...

It was not a "stand your ground" case, if only because Zimmerman didn't have a choice in the matter. Facts are inconvenient things. So you and the rest of the chorus continue yammering about a law you don't like, in a case where it wasn't applicable. As far as I know, you're always allowed to defend yourself against the threat of imminent harm.
 
Last edited:
Re: Nice planet 4: Take 2. Action!

Old Pio said:
It was not a "stand your ground" case, if only because Zimmerman didn't have a choice in the matter. Facts are inconvenient things. So you and the rest of the chorus continue yammering about a law you don't like, in a case where it wasn't applicable. As far as I know, you're always allowed to defend yourself against the threat of imminent harm.
Click to expand...


I pointed out the difference. It's right there in black and white.
 
Re: Nice planet 4: Take 2. Action!

Priceless said:
You might have better luck with white and white.
Click to expand...

It's insane IMO to think that "Stand Your Ground" doesn't affect or change the way "Self Defense" is applied. According to every article or source I have seen the standard for self defense is much much lower than what it was before "Stand Your Ground" came to be.
 
St. Clown said:
Mr. Dunn will go down. Either on the merits of the case or for political reasons, the result will be the same. The authorities better get the charges correct this time.
Click to expand...

Yeah, I'd have a hard time believing a way to spin that one. Multiple witnesses, etc., etc., etc.
 
Re: Nice planet 4: Take 2. Action!

Priceless said:
You might have better luck with white and white.
Click to expand...

Play the race card for all it's worth. Speaking of race cards, JJsr, when he wasn't threatening to castrate Obama or calling Jews "Hymies" (and NYC "Hymietown") found time to say this:

"There is nothing more painful to me at this stage in my life than to walk down the street and hear footsteps and start thinking about robbery. Then look around and see somebody white and feel relieved.... After all we have been through. Just to think we can't walk down our own streets, how humiliating."

Remarks at a meeting of Operation PUSH in Chicago (27 November 1993). Quoted in "Crime: New Frontier - Jesse Jackson Calls It Top Civil-Rights Issue" by Mary A. Johnson, 29 November 1993, Chicago Sun-Times (ellipsis in original). Partially quoted in US News & World Report (10 March 1996)

He was referring, of course, to the countless black victims of black thugs. He seems to have lost his enthusiasm on the subject, there being other racist fish to fry. Fish that generate more TV face time and donations.
 
Re: Nice planet 4: Take 2. Action!

ScoobyDoo said:
It's insane IMO to think that "Stand Your Ground" doesn't affect or change the way "Self Defense" is applied. According to every article or source I have seen the standard for self defense is much much lower than what it was before "Stand Your Ground" came to be.
Click to expand...

And yet, this wasn't a "stand your ground" case, no matter how strenuously you wish it had been. Those injuries would have justified the use of force under any circumstances, with or without SYG.
 
Last edited:
ScoobyDoo said:
I pointed out the difference. It's right there in black and white.
Click to expand...

Still not an SYG case .

I think the duty to retreat is silly because while under an ideal situation you would want no loss of life or property one shouldn't have to argue the possibilities of a well intentioned decision (assuming as such). Laws like this exist because of people who have been convicted that probably shouldn't have been.

Most vectors on this from state to state differ between the value of the life of the likely-criminal against that of the likely victim and their property.

Most retreat situations concede property. They also a concede a chance of physical victimization. Problem is that people are evaluated on perfect hindsight and all kinds of "he/she ought to do..." Placing illogical and difficult standards on people.

IMO, the onus is on the person to not flagrantly break the law. Now if we are talking about somebody getting lost on somebody else's land it's very different seeing as there is an entirely different rational standard of bring under peril in those cases
 
Re: Nice planet 4: Take 2. Action!

Old Pio said:
And yet, this wasn't a "stand your ground" case, no matter how strenuously you wish it had been. Those injuries would have justified the use of force under any circumstances, with or without SYG.
Click to expand...

Yet. Stand your ground was used in the jury instructions. Keep saying it wasn't, but it was.
 
Re: Nice planet 4: Take 2. Action!

ScoobyDoo said:
Yet. Stand your ground was used in the jury instructions. Keep saying it wasn't, but it was.
Click to expand...

but the definition doesn't square against the article you posted

edit: err, rather what happened doesn't square... Zimmerman's case doesn't go along with what the article described
 
Re: Nice planet 4: Take 2. Action!

ScoobyDoo said:
Yet. Stand your ground was used in the jury instructions. Keep saying it wasn't, but it was.
Click to expand...

Are your fingers in your ears? Are you saying "la la la la la" at the top of your lungs? I suppose it doesn't matter that SYG was not mentioned in the trial. Just in jury instructions, which are necessarily broader than the issues brought up by the lawyers. It obviously means quite a bit to you to call this a Stand Your Ground case. You and the rest of the chorus are obviously finding some comfort in that assertion. Better that, in your mind, than the obvious fact this case was an attempted, politically inspired, legal lynching. I'm no George Zimmerman fan. But the law is the law. Mortimer Snerd in the Justice Department can "investigate" this case all he wants as a pander to black America. But there were no civil rights violations here, and the pre-trial FBI investigation showed it.
 
Last edited:
Re: Nice planet 4: Take 2. Action!

As usual, the comments section rules.

Every black in North America needs to be shot or deported. White people would be much, much better off without them.
Click to expand...
It should be legal to shoot blacks entering white neighborhoods
Click to expand...

As to your question, there is no indication either way. The PD are waiting for the coroner's report before going forward. From a legal standpoint, it appears the teens have already plead guilty to felonious assault so I assume trying them for murder would be double jeopardy. Why did the prosecution go for a plea deal before s/he knew what was going to happen to the victim?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top