General Discussion

GiaGiovanni

(1,247 posts)

114. Me neither. We have to rely on the jury now.

Reply to ProdigalJunkMail (Reply #113)

Fri Jul 12, 2013, 06:53 PM

Jul 2013

They've asked for an index of the evidence, so it seems they are going to deliberate carefully.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

124 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

ZIMMERMAN case NOT a Stand Your Ground case [View all] GiaGiovanni Jul 2013 OP

It does seem that, if Martin had not been killed, he would have had a Stand Your Ground case. djean111 Jul 2013 #1

Possibly, but Zimmerman's case is not based on Stand Your Ground GiaGiovanni Jul 2013 #5

Oh, I know! It is just sort of ironic or something. djean111 Jul 2013 #9

Yes, and that's leading to a lot of misunderstanding GiaGiovanni Jul 2013 #12

self-serving liar noiretextatique Jul 2013 #2

Oh, I thought you were talking to me GiaGiovanni Jul 2013 #8

LOL...i would not be that rude to you noiretextatique Jul 2013 #67

I appreciate that GiaGiovanni Jul 2013 #69

i am hopeful noiretextatique Jul 2013 #87

I think it will be manslaughter, too frazzled Jul 2013 #3

No, it is a stalking murder... hlthe2b Jul 2013 #4

Agreed! nt rdharma Jul 2013 #6

Stalking was not proved in court at all GiaGiovanni Jul 2013 #10

Stalking murder. Period hlthe2b Jul 2013 #14

You need EVIDENCE in court. GiaGiovanni Jul 2013 #15

Stalking murder. Period... regardless of legal technicalities... hlthe2b Jul 2013 #17

I know you feel a certain way, but courts require EVIDENCE GiaGiovanni Jul 2013 #20

I am not bound by that nor are other fair-minded individuals. It was a stalking murder. Period. hlthe2b Jul 2013 #21

You are bound if you wish to be factual GiaGiovanni Jul 2013 #23

Legal definitions hlthe2b Jul 2013 #25

This isn't about legal definition anomiep Jul 2013 #32

The facts bear out the public's concusion he was stalking... hlthe2b Jul 2013 #36

Since I did in fact differentiate between public opinion and legal requirements anomiep Jul 2013 #38

No they don't. And I'm sorry you don't understand that. GiaGiovanni Jul 2013 #61

YOU don't get to determine nor define what the public choses to believe nor conclude from the facts, hlthe2b Jul 2013 #64

Post removed Post removed Jul 2013 #82

I advocate nothing. I DARE you to find any comment that has ever advocating anything hlthe2b Jul 2013 #83

seriously? galileoreloaded Jul 2013 #84

Stating that public disdain equates to public violance is abhorrent... hlthe2b Jul 2013 #85

kneejerk reactions and an inability to allow the system to determine guilt is galileoreloaded Jul 2013 #88

No, the rule of law did not allow for OJ or Casey Anthony or any other equitted to suffer hlthe2b Jul 2013 #89

Just for the record^^ post 84^^ deleted his graphic depicition of KKK lynching/vigilantism that was hlthe2b Jul 2013 #90

no i didn't. i stand by what I posted. i belive in a rule of law. galileoreloaded Jul 2013 #92

You are denying posting a picture of a KKK rally to accuse those who agree with you of calling hlthe2b Jul 2013 #93

ugh. reading comprehension people. I DID post that galileoreloaded Jul 2013 #94

It is a lie to accuse me of advocating violance. hlthe2b Jul 2013 #95

Case in point(TPM) If you�re a wannabe cop loser with a gun who starts stalking a kid in the dark, hlthe2b Jul 2013 #29

That's not evidence. That's someone's opinion. GiaGiovanni Jul 2013 #33

Apparently you aren't reading my posts where I have repeatedly made a distinction hlthe2b Jul 2013 #34

You can't accuse people in real life without some evidence either. GiaGiovanni Jul 2013 #40

The evidence is that he got out of the car, despite being told NOT to, and followed (stalked) him. hlthe2b Jul 2013 #41

Yes he got out of the car and followed Trayvon, but Trayvon outran him GiaGiovanni Jul 2013 #44

Whether or not it meets this narrowly defined legal definition of stalking, IT WAS STALKING>.. hlthe2b Jul 2013 #46

No one is asking you to forgive or excuse what happened GiaGiovanni Jul 2013 #53

I am not saying anything he did not do. He acted in violation of his previous expressed duties hlthe2b Jul 2013 #55

You have no evidence that he stalked anyone GiaGiovanni Jul 2013 #58

Here is the legal definition you conveniently choose to ignore hlthe2b Jul 2013 #60

Don't you think if this were the case, the DA would have filed stalking charges? GiaGiovanni Jul 2013 #72

No, means they didn't have sufficent evidence or chose not to charge--not that there was NO evidence hlthe2b Jul 2013 #79

You can continue your Zimmie defense here. hlthe2b Jul 2013 #57

Ok, we're done. You're now accusing me without facts. GiaGiovanni Jul 2013 #63

I don't waste time on those who won't even read/respond to what is written hlthe2b Jul 2013 #66

The facts haven't changed, even if people's opinions do. GiaGiovanni Jul 2013 #70

Yes, indeed, the facts haven't changed (including those you are ignoring) hlthe2b Jul 2013 #71

The DA did not file stalking charges. That means there was no evidence for them GiaGiovanni Jul 2013 #73

No, means they didn't have sufficent evidence or chose not to charge--not that there was NO evidence hlthe2b Jul 2013 #77

Why do you keep repeating this? anomiep Jul 2013 #97

His instructions as a neighborhood watch volunteer already made that clear... hlthe2b Jul 2013 #98

You didn't address my point anomiep Jul 2013 #101

Your point is immaterial. hlthe2b Jul 2013 #103

The fact that you made a factually false statement is immaterial? anomiep Jul 2013 #105

Erroneous. And clarified. I strongly suspect you too are not free hlthe2b Jul 2013 #106

It's immaterial to whether or not Zimmerman was actually stalking anomiep Jul 2013 #108

I said my statement was erroneous. There is a difference between intentionally misrepresenting as hlthe2b Jul 2013 #109

See? anomiep Jul 2013 #110

And once again, the conclusion: Zimmerman stalked. n/t hlthe2b Jul 2013 #111

Let me ask you something. anomiep Jul 2013 #115

that dead horse you keep beating is not only long buried, but mummified by now. hlthe2b Jul 2013 #117

STALKING. Mr. David Jul 2013 #28

Once again, you have no evidence of stalking GiaGiovanni Jul 2013 #37

On the official record: he left his car and followed despite being told by 911 NOT TO hlthe2b Jul 2013 #42

No. You have that backwards Recursion Jul 2013 #47

Only a better case to be made for stalking.... hlthe2b Jul 2013 #49

Well, but you have the order backwards several times in this thread Recursion Jul 2013 #50

He followed, was told not to. He STALKED> End of story hlthe2b Jul 2013 #52

Everybody accuses me of being pro-the-other-guy when I talk about this online Recursion Jul 2013 #59

You've got the sequence wrong. GiaGiovanni Jul 2013 #51

He left his car armed, he followed, he was told not to, He was also told NOT to as part of his hlthe2b Jul 2013 #54

You didn't address my point anomiep Jul 2013 #99

He was representing neighborhood watch, so yes, those rules are likewise relevant. hlthe2b Jul 2013 #100

I'm not in zimmerman's camp anomiep Jul 2013 #102

No, I'm glad to hear you are not. hlthe2b Jul 2013 #104

No stalking involved HolyMoley Jul 2013 #16

Stalking murder.. Period... n/t hlthe2b Jul 2013 #19

Emotional outbursts and total disregard for the judical system aside HolyMoley Jul 2013 #24

Stop it. I am not arguing what will occur in court. I am arguing judgment in public opinion hlthe2b Jul 2013 #26

And his life is already over at the young age of 30 (ish). Mr. David Jul 2013 #31

if declared not guilty there will be a wildly profitable book ProdigalJunkMail Jul 2013 #39

Case in point(TPM) If you�re a wannabe cop loser with a gun who starts stalking a kid in the dark, hlthe2b Jul 2013 #30

There was no proof Zimmerman went back to his vehicle... Spazito Jul 2013 #48

Correct. But there was also no proof that he didn't--That's the problem. GiaGiovanni Jul 2013 #56

That is why it was so crucial for the prosecution to poke as many holes as they could... Spazito Jul 2013 #62

He does go back and forth on where the police should meet him GiaGiovanni Jul 2013 #65

The Prosecutor, John Guy, pointed that out very strongly in his rebuttal... Spazito Jul 2013 #75

Definitely manslaughter verdict. Fifty imaginary bucks here. WinkyDink Jul 2013 #7

I'll add my fifty. GiaGiovanni Jul 2013 #11

So the state appealed to the hearts of the jurors Generic Other Jul 2013 #13

Hey, I'm stating my prediction. But just because you asked so nicely: WinkyDink Jul 2013 #119

Well I kinda hope you are right Generic Other Jul 2013 #120

Muah! :-) WinkyDink Jul 2013 #123

He was either defending himself or he wasn't badtoworse Jul 2013 #18

You are correct GiaGiovanni Jul 2013 #22

*If* he was actually defending himself .. anomiep Jul 2013 #107

A lot of people don't understand that HolyMoley Jul 2013 #27

Are you advocating the "Stand Your Ground" law? rdharma Jul 2013 #35

Neither. Just trying to clarify how the jury will have to make its decision GiaGiovanni Jul 2013 #43

In that case it's clear....... it was NOT self-defense. rdharma Jul 2013 #45

Let's hope the jury sees it that way GiaGiovanni Jul 2013 #68

Defense should have debunked the "sidewalk weapon" BS! rdharma Jul 2013 #91

Judge mentioned "SYG" in final jury instructions. Atman Jul 2013 #74

She shouldn't have. This isn't a SYG case. What did she say exactly? GiaGiovanni Jul 2013 #76

It was toward the end. I don't know the exact wording. Atman Jul 2013 #78

That's not good GiaGiovanni Jul 2013 #80

it was a horrid phrase to use in the instructions... ProdigalJunkMail Jul 2013 #96

I am surprised that the prosecution didn't say anything. GiaGiovanni Jul 2013 #112

i sure hope not... ProdigalJunkMail Jul 2013 #113

Me neither. We have to rely on the jury now. GiaGiovanni Jul 2013 #114

see post # 81 rollin74 Jul 2013 #86

the stand your ground reference comes at approx. 10:14 mark of video below rollin74 Jul 2013 #81

Wow. That's right out there, isn't it. GiaGiovanni Jul 2013 #116

She's not a dumb judge or new to this. vaberella Jul 2013 #121

I have to disagree with you. GiaGiovanni Jul 2013 #124

That wording of the jury instructions ctaylors6 Jul 2013 #118

oh makes sense. by sheer nature it's Stand Your Ground. vaberella Jul 2013 #122