Pensacola Discussion Forum
Would you like to react to this message? Create an account in a few clicks or log in to continue.

This is a forum based out of Pensacola Florida.


You are not connected. Please login or register

Pensacola Discussion Forum » General Discussion » I feel like some forum members have suffered head injuries or had a frontal lobotomy

I feel like some forum members have suffered head injuries or had a frontal lobotomy

+3
Nekochan
Hospital Bob
2seaoat
7 posters

Go to page : 1, 2  Next

Go down  Message [Page 1 of 2]

2seaoat



Dreams starts a thread and says that the Zimmerman case was not a stand your ground case, but every jury which has a self defense case now gets a standard stand your ground instruction which means EVERY case where self defense is raised gets the Stand your ground law injected into the case........drum roll please......by law.

How can I carry on a semi intelligent conversation when Dreams thinks she is going to correct me, and she simply does not understand the law, or with this latest fiasco.....has a bit of common sense.   The stand your ground jury instruction was critical because the Prosecutors continually wanted to make the leaving of the car by Zimmerman as wrong, but the stand your ground instructions clearly states  If George Zimmerman was not engaged in an unlawful activity and he was attacked any place he had a right to be

Are people brain dead not understanding that the Stand your ground instruction was critical in the jury's determination that first....Zimmerman was not engaged in unlawful activity.......and he was attacked in place he had a right to be......end of story.  

I have patiently tried to weeks ahead of this case highlight instructions and what would be important, but to suggest this was not a stand your ground case when the law says the instruction must be given is simply a bridge too far.....the more I point out Dreams failure to grasp concepts the angrier she gets and thinks she is going to trip me up with something as dumbasz as a complete comprehension gap that stand your ground law was given to the Jury to make their determination.

Hospital Bob

Hospital Bob


Despite backlash, 'stand your ground' laws did not apply to Zimmerman case


A juror in the George Zimmerman trial broke her silence Monday night on national TV to say Florida's "stand your ground" laws played a role in the decision to acquit the Sanford neighborhood watch captain.

But the woman, identified only as Juror B37, also said she had "no doubt" Zimmerman feared for his life in the final moments of his struggle with Trayvon Martin, and that was the definitive factor in the verdict. The juror spoke to CNN's Anderson Cooper 360 on Monday.

That matched the assessment of legal experts who earlier Monday were describing the verdict on Saturday as the result of successful, garden-variety self-defense arguments that could sway a jury in any state.

Experienced prosecutors and law professors agreed that they think jurors were swayed by basic self-defense arguments made by Zimmerman's attorneys: Regardless of who initiated the encounter, at the moment the deadly shot was fired, Zimmerman feared for his life.

"I can see a similar outcome in jurisdictions without 'stand your ground' for the mere fact that the best eyewitness to counter the defense strategy was dead," said Darren Lenard Hutchinson, a professor of race and civil rights law at the University of Florida Levin College of Law. "That's the terrible reality. The jurors saw a bloodied nose and that may have been enough for them."

Bob Dekle, a retired prosecutor who also teaches at UF Law, said, " 'Stand your ground' turns out to have been a huge red herring (in the Zimmerman case.) The result very well could have been the same prior to enactment of the law."

Dekle, a critic of "stand your ground" provisions, said that even if a person initiates a fight, they always have had the right to defend themselves if they're in fear of death or great bodily harm. "You don't forfeit your right to do whatever you need to do to live simply because you've been a jerk," Dekle said.

Those comments are no surprise to Sen. Tom Lee, Republican from Brandon, who was president of the Florida Senate when stand your ground legislation was passed in 2005.

"I have yet to talk to anyone who believes the stand your ground provisions were remotely relevant to this case," said Lee, who believes the law is working the way it was intended. "For me, this case centered on your right to defend yourself."

http://www.tampabay.com/news/courts/criminal/despite-outcry-zimmermans-acquittal-was-not-based-on-stand-your-ground-laws/2131629

Nekochan

Nekochan

I posted a couple of links on Dreams' thread. Apparently, neither Zimmerman's defense team or the prosecution considered it to be a stand your ground case.

2seaoat



I posted a couple of links on Dreams' thread. Apparently, neither Zimmerman's defense team or the prosecution considered it to be a stand your ground case.


You can get all the talking heads, all the guppies in your fish tank, and that talking chipmunk, but until a jury is not given the stand your ground jury instruction on a self defense case, EVERY SINGLE CASE IN THE STATE OF FLORIDA WILL HAVE IN THE INSTRUCTIONS THE STAND YOUR GROUND INSTRUCTION WHICH IS TELLING THE JURY THAT STAND YOUR GROUND IS THE LAW.

The Judge instructed that jury on Stand your ground. I heard talking heads on CNN incorrectly say that the Jury did consider Stand your ground, I heard others say that the defense thought did not really think it was a stand your ground case.........WELL THEN, ASK THE JUDGE NOT TO GIVE THE INSTRUCTION......I am sure the prosecutors would have loved the defense to back up their claims that this was not a stand your ground case......Knock Knock.....who is there......a stand your ground instruction.....Who Dat........you are on this forum.

Nekochan

Nekochan

2seaoat wrote:I posted a couple of links on Dreams' thread. Apparently, neither Zimmerman's defense team or the prosecution considered it to be a stand your ground case.


You can get all the talking heads, all the guppies in your fish tank, and that talking chipmunk,  but until a jury is not given the stand your ground jury instruction on a self defense case, EVERY SINGLE CASE IN THE STATE OF FLORIDA WILL HAVE IN THE INSTRUCTIONS THE STAND YOUR GROUND INSTRUCTION WHICH IS TELLING THE JURY THAT STAND YOUR GROUND IS THE LAW.

The Judge instructed that jury on Stand your ground.  I heard talking heads on CNN incorrectly say that the Jury did consider Stand your ground, I heard others say that the defense thought did not really think it was a stand your ground case.........WELL THEN, ASK THE JUDGE NOT TO GIVE THE INSTRUCTION......I am sure the prosecutors would have loved the defense to back up their claims that this was not a stand your ground case......Knock Knock.....who is there......a stand your ground instruction.....Who Dat........you are on this forum.  

The self defense law in Florida was there before the Stand Your Ground law was enacted. The main part of Stand Your Ground is the retreat part. Stand your ground may be in all jury instructions in self defense cases, but both the prosecution and the defense have said that the Zimmerman case wasn't a stand your ground case because "retreat" wasn't an issue.

So go argue with the prosecution and defense lawyers and call them all fools.

Guest


Guest

Nekochan wrote:
2seaoat wrote:I posted a couple of links on Dreams' thread. Apparently, neither Zimmerman's defense team or the prosecution considered it to be a stand your ground case.


You can get all the talking heads, all the guppies in your fish tank, and that talking chipmunk,  but until a jury is not given the stand your ground jury instruction on a self defense case, EVERY SINGLE CASE IN THE STATE OF FLORIDA WILL HAVE IN THE INSTRUCTIONS THE STAND YOUR GROUND INSTRUCTION WHICH IS TELLING THE JURY THAT STAND YOUR GROUND IS THE LAW.

The Judge instructed that jury on Stand your ground.  I heard talking heads on CNN incorrectly say that the Jury did consider Stand your ground, I heard others say that the defense thought did not really think it was a stand your ground case.........WELL THEN, ASK THE JUDGE NOT TO GIVE THE INSTRUCTION......I am sure the prosecutors would have loved the defense to back up their claims that this was not a stand your ground case......Knock Knock.....who is there......a stand your ground instruction.....Who Dat........you are on this forum.  

The self defense law in Florida was there before the Stand Your Ground law was enacted.  The main part of Stand Your Ground is the retreat part.  Stand your ground may be in all jury instructions in self defense cases, but both the prosecution and the defense have said that the Zimmerman case wasn't a stand your ground case because "retreat" wasn't an issue.

So go argue with the prosecution and defense lawyers and call them all fools.    

I'm not going to argue w/ that fool Seaoat who thinks he knows more than lawyers. It's just ridiculous.

2seaoat



I love it. When each person on here can guess what is in a jurors mind and posts on this forum that this was not a stand your ground case when every self defense case as a matter of law in the State of Florida has the jury being instructed by the judge that in fact.......it is a stand your ground case.......

Now I am a fool because people who argue that the jury was not instructed by the judge on stand your ground, well folks if you do not get a self defense instruction from the judge.....it is not a self defense case. If you do not get a manslaughter instruction from the judge.....it is not a manslaughter case, and if you do not get a stand your ground instruction from the judge.....it is not a stand your ground case.

Dreams you simply do not understand the law. You cut and paste other people's opinions and think that backs up your position, Bob tries to compare the instructions of self defense and Stand your ground and by some deductive logic declares it does not matter, Neko simply says this case was not about retreat..........I do not need to cut and paste to understand the law, nor was I the least bit confused that this was a stand your ground case.....why.....because I heard the judge tell the jury it was.....and they considered the stand your law instruction.......now it may come out juror 3 did not even know it was a murder 2 case, and juror 5 did not understand it was a manslaughter case, and that juror 6 did not understand it was a stand your ground case..........the ignorance of a jury to comprehend, the failure of a talking head to understand the actual instructions, or the defense or prosecutors saying they felt like it was not a stand your ground matters not a hill of beans because the legislators in the state of Florida and the Judge know it is a stand your ground case because they have commanded that the jury be instructed it is..........so please show me where the jury did not hear what was commanded. Idiocy.

2seaoat



I posted a couple of links on Dreams' thread. Apparently, neither Zimmerman's defense team or the prosecution considered it to be a stand your ground case.

Yep, and they also thought it was not a Murder 2 case.....but by golly the court instructed the jury that in fact it was a Murder 2 case.......and it was a stand your ground case.......they did not find murder 2......one juror thought they made that threshold at some point, and in the end it was NG on the manslaughter, but to argue that this was not a stand your ground case is as foolish as arguing that this was not a murder 2 case.....and to use the defense lawyers as proof.......priceless.

Guest


Guest

This was not a stand your ground case. If it was, the case would have been heard in front of a judge. The defense opted not to which would have made the difference between stand your ground and self defense.It is just a procedural issue in which the state would have provided the same evidence.

2seaoat



This was not a stand your ground case. If it was, the case would have been heard in front of a judge. The defense opted not to which would have made the difference between stand your ground and self defense.It is just a procedural issue in which the state would have provided the same evidence.

Is that your final answer......do you want to poll the audience(that will really give you credible choices), how about polling the so called talking heads(that has been the best entertainment next to this forum that one can get for nothing.......and you get what you pay for.....), or maybe you can call a friend for the answer...........

Your logic is like watching a child try to put her coat on backwards and the more she struggles with the jacket, the more asz backwards she gets. The choice of the defendant to take advantage of a stand your ground hearing before a criminal trial, has zero relevancy as to the stand your ground instruction being given except, if the pretrial motion is successful the Jury instruction will not be given because the stand your ground case will be dismissed. This is hilarious......so the fact that Omara made a motion for acquittal on the murder 2, was the determining factor of the case being a Murder 2......let me see.....so under your sterling logic.....If Omara would simple not make the motion for acquittal this case would magically no longer be a murder 2, and the jury would not get murder 2 instructions.......you are a continuing source of smiles.

However I am a Dilbert....a fool.....but golly gee I can put a jacket on the right way.

Nekochan

Nekochan

2seaoat wrote:I posted a couple of links on Dreams' thread. Apparently, neither Zimmerman's defense team or the prosecution considered it to be a stand your ground case.

Yep, and they also thought it was not a Murder 2 case.....but by golly the court instructed the jury that in fact it was a Murder 2 case.......and it was a stand your ground case.......they did not find murder 2......one juror thought they made that threshold at some point, and in the end it was NG on the manslaughter, but to argue that this was not a stand your ground case is as foolish as arguing that this was not a murder 2 case.....and to use the defense lawyers as proof.......priceless.

Seaoat, the prosecution also said it wasn't a stand your ground case. But maybe you are just starting to come around to my way of thinking that the prosecutor is a liar. Shocked 

Guest


Guest

2seaoat wrote:This was not a stand your ground case. If it was, the case would have been heard in front of a judge. The defense opted not to which would have made the difference between stand your ground and self defense.It is just a procedural issue in which the state would have provided the same evidence.

Is that your final answer......do you want to poll the audience(that will really give you credible choices), how about polling the so called talking heads(that has been the best entertainment next to this forum that one can get for nothing.......and you get what you pay for.....), or maybe you can call a friend for the answer...........

Your logic is like watching a child try to put her coat on backwards and the more she struggles with the jacket, the more asz backwards she gets.  The choice of the defendant to take advantage of a stand your ground hearing before a criminal trial, has zero relevancy as to the stand your ground instruction being given except, if the pretrial motion is successful the Jury instruction will not be given because the stand your ground case will be dismissed.   This is hilarious......so the fact that Omara made a motion for acquittal on the murder 2, was the determining factor of the case being a Murder 2......let me see.....so under your sterling logic.....If Omara would simple not make the motion for acquittal this case would magically no longer be a murder 2, and the jury would not get murder 2 instructions.......you are a continuing source of smiles.

However I am a Dilbert....a fool.....but golly gee I can put a jacket on the right way.

That was the answer from Angela Corey, State Atty. I'm sure you know more than her.

2seaoat



Seaoat, the prosecution also said it wasn't a stand your ground case. But maybe you are just starting to come around to my way of thinking that the prosecutor is a liar.

Do you understand the concept of best evidence? The courts will not consider a rendition of folks opinions on a contract, when the contract put into evidence speaks for itself. This continual flailing around giving talking heads, prosecutor's opinions, defense counsel opinions is just a bunch of people giving their opinion of the law, and like noses most people have an opinion. The law is without an opinion. It is black letter. It is read by a judge to the jury to follow......it is not her telling the jury....golly...the prosecutor thinks this is what this case is about.....or Nancy Grace does not think this is a stand your ground case.....her opinion of the contract would also not mean a hill of beans because under the best evidence rule the contract speaks for itself, and the law speaks for itself without anybody's opinion. These are simple concepts There is no alternative interpretation. There is only the law and whether the Murder 2 instruction, manslaughter instruction, or stand your ground instruction is given, and like the contract under the best evidence rule, the opinions of the law or the contract do not mean diddly......the law which was given to the jury by directive speaks for itself......but I am glad you put more weight in folks opinions.....and that Nancy Grace.....by golly she has a nose and an opinion.

Guest


Guest

And judges never give wrong jury instructions? LOL!

2seaoat



That was the answer from Angela Corey, State Atty. I'm sure you know more than her.

By golly that does it.....that lady who is going to be criminally prosecuted for Brady violations gave an opinion of the law. Stop the presses judge. Do not give the law to the jury.....that criminal, lying political prosecutor does not think that this case is stand your ground.......criminally prosecuting for a Brady violation.....like a probability of less than a half percent....but that is what is going to happen.....and now because she has an opinion of the law.....by golly the judge will just have to take those instructions mandated by law from being considered by the jury........line up all the opinions you want....you lack the requisite understanding of concepts to even understand what I talk about.....but heck......maybe if we have a hundred opinions that may be the threshold where the law in Florida changes.....chazam.

2seaoat



And judges never give wrong jury instructions? LOL!

More stellar logic which now takes the foolishness away from Seaoat who said this is a stand your ground case because the judge instructed the jury it was......and assigns it to the judge who now has made an error because she did not listen to Nancy Grace or the criminal........you know I only thought you put jackets on backwards.....now I see you are trying to put it on backwards and your are slipping your legs into the jacket.......priceless.

Nekochan

Nekochan

I'm not arguing that the jury wasn't given instructions. I read the instructions several days ago.   I am saying that the language in the statute about having no duty to retreat didn't apply in the Zimmerman case. Not every word of every statute given to the jury is always going to apply to that case.  My main argument is that the outcome of the trial would probably have been the same before stand your ground was enacted.  We had self defense laws in Florida before stand your ground and no defendant was ever required under Florida law to just lie there and be beaten to death.

But if you are going to call me a fool, then you need to call all the defense and prosecution lawyers a fool too.

Oh and I haven't listened to Nancy Grace, either. I have no idea what she said about stand your ground. I posted what the defense and prosecution lawyers said.

Guest


Guest

Nekochan wrote:I'm not arguing that the jury wasn't given instructions. I read the instructions several days ago.   I am saying that the language in the statute about having no duty to retreat didn't apply in the Zimmerman case. Not every word of every statute given to the jury is always going to apply to that case.  My main argument is that the outcome of the trial would probably have been the same before stand your ground was enacted.  We had self defense laws in Florida before stand your ground and no defendant was ever required under Florida law to just lie there and be beaten to death.

But if you are going to call me a fool, then you need to call all the defense and prosecution lawyers a fool too.

He already has. LOL!

TEOTWAWKI

TEOTWAWKI

Funny how the progressives and the stealth progressive seaoat have fallen back on name calling and making fun of the forums mental abilities when we understand their drab crap and yet refuse to accept it...

Sal

Sal

Nekochan wrote:My main argument is that the outcome of the trial would probably have been the same before stand your ground was enacted.

You're probably right.

This did all go down in Sanford, FL, after all.

The kid's lucky the cops didn't taze him posthumously.

Nekochan

Nekochan

I just take issue with Seaoat calling forum members (laymen) fools when both the prosecution AND the defense said the case wasn't about stand your ground. And also, when the defense did not revolve around not having the obligation to retreat.

Maybe everyone on here is a fool and so then what we have here is the biggest fool who chooses to continue to argue with a forum full of fools. Wink 

Guest


Guest

Nekochan wrote:I just take issue with Seaoat calling forum members (laymen) fools when both the prosecution AND the defense said the case wasn't about stand your ground.   And also, when the defense did not revolve around not having the obligation to retreat.  

Maybe everyone on here is a fool and so then what we have here is the biggest fool who chooses to continue to argue with a forum full of fools. Wink 

LoL! Seaoat is a layman too who thinks he's a lawyer, though.

2seaoat



Funny how the progressives and the stealth progressive seaoat have fallen back on name calling and making fun of the forums mental abilities when we understand their drab crap and yet refuse to accept it...


Yes anybody who has an opinion that a case where the judge instructs the jury it is a stand your ground case, and then says somebody has an opinion that it is not..........they are a fool. No name calling, just a simple fact of the condition that person who holds that opinion. Now if a person wants to argue that a Murder 2 case was not proven, or it really should not be a murder 2 case, that is an opinion which may be foolish, but I can only counter that opinion with my opinion.....not worth a hill of beans. However, to misstate the law and say it is not a murder 2 case, and to continually come back to the opinion that this was not a stand your ground case.....well either a person is a fool, or the instruction was not given.........hmmmm and to put icing on that fool cake....I am told they understand it.

TEOTWAWKI

TEOTWAWKI

2seaoat wrote:Funny how the progressives and the stealth progressive seaoat have fallen back on name calling and making fun of the forums mental abilities when we understand their drab crap and yet refuse to accept it...


Yes anybody who has an opinion that a case where the judge instructs the jury it is a stand your ground case, and then says somebody has an opinion that it is not..........they are a fool.   No name calling, just a simple fact of the condition that person who holds that opinion.  Now if a person wants to argue that a Murder 2 case was not proven, or it really should not be a murder 2 case, that is an opinion which may be foolish, but I can only counter that opinion with my opinion.....not worth a hill of beans.  However, to misstate the law and say it is not a murder 2 case, and to continually come back to the opinion that this was not a stand your ground case.....well either a person is a fool, or the instruction was not given.........hmmmm and to put icing on that fool cake....I am told they understand it.

I feel like some forum members have suffered head injuries or had a frontal lobotomy Th_gor10

2seaoat



I just take issue with Seaoat calling forum members (laymen) fools when both the prosecution AND the defense said the case wasn't about stand your ground. And also, when the defense did not revolve around not having the obligation to retreat.

Nothing you just posted changes the status of the jury instruction where the judge commanded the jury to follow the law of stand your ground. If your opinion, or all the other folks who want to render an opinion can show me where the judge did not command the jury to follow the law of stand your ground, or that any of these opinions changed the law......well then I would not be having conversations with fools, and I would certainly have to apologize because the judge did not instruct the jury on the stand your ground law. If a thousand people give the opinion that the earth is flat, it does not change the physical natural laws of the universe , nor does it change the law as given to the jury.

Sponsored content



Back to top  Message [Page 1 of 2]

Go to page : 1, 2  Next

Pensacola Discussion Forum » General Discussion » I feel like some forum members have suffered head injuries or had a frontal lobotomy

Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum