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 » For Seaoat.

For Seaoat.

+2
Joanimaroni
Hospital Bob
6 posters

Go down  Message [Page 1 of 1]

1For Seaoat. Empty For Seaoat. 7/28/2013, 7:53 pm

Hospital Bob

Hospital Bob

Here are the jury instructions...

http://www.scribd.com/doc/153354467/George-Zimmerman-Trial-Final-Jury-Instructions

Within that document there is a statement.  I have done a screen capture of the document.   Here is that screen capture...

For Seaoat. Jury11

Okay,  let's go over that shall we.

It says Zimmerman "cannot be guilty of manslaughter...  if the killing was justifiable"

It DOES NOT say what you keep telling us.  That Zimmerman was guilty of manslaughter but self defense excuses it.  

There is no manslaughter if the killing was justifiable.  Period.  End of story.  

2For Seaoat. Empty Re: For Seaoat. 7/28/2013, 7:58 pm

Joanimaroni

Joanimaroni

Bob wrote:Here are the jury instructions...

http://www.scribd.com/doc/153354467/George-Zimmerman-Trial-Final-Jury-Instructions

Within that document there is a statement.  I have done a screen capture of the document.   Here is that screen capture...

For Seaoat. Jury11

Okay,  let's go over that shall we.

It says Zimmerman "cannot be guilty of manslaughter...  if the killing was justifiable"

It DOES NOT say what you keep telling us.  That Zimmerman was guilty of manslaughter but self defense excuses it.  

There is no manslaughter if the killing was justifiable.  Period.  End of story.  



Period. End of story.  cheers 

3For Seaoat. Empty Re: For Seaoat. 7/28/2013, 8:04 pm

2seaoat



There is no manslaughter if the killing was justifiable. Period. End of story.




And Bob.....how can a proven manslaughter be justified as a matter of law?

4For Seaoat. Empty Re: For Seaoat. 7/28/2013, 8:09 pm

Hospital Bob

Hospital Bob

2seaoat wrote:There is no manslaughter if the killing was justifiable.  Period.  End of story.  




And Bob.....how can a proven manslaughter be justified as a matter of law?

Oh for christ sakes.  How many times do we have to say this.
If it's justifiable, IT IS NOT manslaughter.  THAT IS EXACTLY WHAT THE STATE OF FLORIDA AND IT'S CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEM JUST TOLD YOU IN THAT QUOTE I PROVIDED.

5For Seaoat. Empty Re: For Seaoat. 7/28/2013, 8:13 pm

2seaoat



Oh for christ sakes. How many times do we have to say this.
If it's justifiable IT IS NOT manslaughter. THAT IS EXACTLY WHAT THE STATE OF FLORIDA AND IT'S CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEM JUST TOLD YOU IN THAT QUOTE I PROVIDED.



Hmmm, I filled my tires with gasoline and flushed the brake fluid from my radiator......for christs sake how many times do I have to define what tires are filled with and what is put in my cooling system.

It was an easy question Bob. What makes a Manslaughter justifiable? Is it the color of the flowers near the sidewalk, or is it how many birds are in the sky when the victim is killed by the acts of the defendant?

Simple questions should have simple answers.

6For Seaoat. Empty Re: For Seaoat. 7/28/2013, 8:16 pm

Guest


Guest

For Seaoat. Th?id=H.4710845793043899&pid=1

That's not what their supposedly enlightened progressive liberal mentality requires even after sending the man through a court of his peers.

*****SMILE*****

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mhru3GXbkHY&list=PL29CFDB259394A591

Smile

7For Seaoat. Empty Re: For Seaoat. 7/28/2013, 8:27 pm

2seaoat



That's not what their supposedly enlightened progressive liberal mentality requires even after sending the man through a court of his peers.


So now that simple question is about liberals and conservatives. I remain vigilant for that promised answer which was implied when this very special thread was initiated for my benefit and requested conversation. What under the law makes a proven manslaughter justifiable?

8For Seaoat. Empty Re: For Seaoat. 7/28/2013, 8:39 pm

Guest


Guest

For Seaoat. Th?id=H.4653211623358562&pid=1

The use of deadly force is justified only under conditions of extreme necessity as a last resort.

The use of deadly force is always justifiable when ones head is being slammed against a sidewalk repeatedly since the sidewalk would at that time be considered a deadly weapon.

That's called self defense.

*****SMILE*****

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ww5GXbk58R0

Smile 

9For Seaoat. Empty Re: For Seaoat. 7/28/2013, 9:37 pm

Hospital Bob

Hospital Bob

2seaoat wrote: What under the law makes a proven manslaughter justifiable?

Since you've asked me this question four times and don't accept my answer, let's go about this a different way.
Let's see you give your answer. And then maybe we can get some insight into what it is that's on your mind to cause you to keep asking this question repeatedly.
So your answer is....?

10For Seaoat. Empty Re: For Seaoat. 7/28/2013, 9:41 pm

Hospital Bob

Hospital Bob

And by the way, if you can document anything which supports your contention that there was a "proven manslaughter" which occurred in this case even though there was a verdict of not guilty on all counts, then I would really like to see that.
But of course since there is no such support for that claim, you won't be able to produce that. Only keep making the baseless claim. lol

11For Seaoat. Empty Re: For Seaoat. 7/28/2013, 9:43 pm

2seaoat



So your answer is....?

I gave it earlier as I told you.......but at least you admit you do not read the posts.........so"

Affirmative defenses for Manslaughter are:
Insanity..........like giving answers over and over........
Self Defense....

These are the only acts where a defendant shifts the burden where a killing can be excused under the law.

12For Seaoat. Empty Re: For Seaoat. 7/28/2013, 9:48 pm

2seaoat



And by the way, if you can document anything which supports your contention that there was a "proven manslaughter" which occurred in this case even though there was a verdict of not guilty on all counts, then I would really like to see that.

Gosh, I ran out of crayons........and this typewriter does not type braille.......but just for kicks and giggles......Martin is dead, and Zimmerman did it.........this is not a chicken and egg argument Bob......there are concepts which actually come first........Martin is dead, and Zimmerman did it.........now you choose your poison.....justified......exonerated......excused.....but the Self defense instruction told the jury they must enter a NG if the Defendant has met his burden.

13For Seaoat. Empty Re: For Seaoat. 7/28/2013, 9:59 pm

Hospital Bob

Hospital Bob

2seaoat wrote:So your answer is....?

I gave it earlier as I told you.......but at least you admit you do not read the posts.........so"

Affirmative defenses for Manslaughter are:
Insanity..........like giving answers over and over........
Self Defense....

These are the only acts where a defendant shifts the burden where a killing can be excused under the law.

Now we're getting somewhere.  

You're exactly correct.  "Affirmative defenses for manslaughter are...self-defense."  

But what you're confused about is your believe that there is BOTH manslaughter AND self-defense in this case.

If there is an establishment of self-defense,  then there is no manslaughter in the legal sense.  That's why the jury said Zimmerman was not guilty of manslaughter.

In common everyday language people may well want to make the terms "manslaughter",  "homicide" and "killing be synonymous.
But "manslaughter" and "killing" are not synonymous in the law.
That is the false premise which has been the basis for your whole argument.

14For Seaoat. Empty Re: For Seaoat. 7/28/2013, 10:14 pm

Hospital Bob

Hospital Bob

Another paragraph from the jury instructions fully supports everything I'm telling you...

A killing that is excusable or was committed by the use of justifiable deadly force is lawful.If you find Trayvon Martin was killed by George Zimmerman, you will then consider the circumstances surrounding the killing in deciding if the killing was Murder in the Second Degree or was Manslaughter, or whether the killing was excusable or resulted from justifiable use of deadly force

That is making a clear distinction between the terms "killing",  and "manslaughter".
It is in no way shape or form making the terms "killing" and "manslaughter" be synonymous.  
It is putting all three scenarios (2nd degree murder,  manslaughter and justifiable homicide) under the umbrella of "killing".  But clearly stating that all three are very distinct from each other.  Manslaughter is a subset of "killing",  same as 2nd degree murder and justifiable homicide both are.
But killing is not synonymous with "manslaughter".  Manslaughter is one of three distinct options referred to by the word "killing".  

IF A KILLING IS DECIDED TO BE JUSTIFIABLE HOMICIDE,  IT IS NOT MANSLAUGHTER.  

15For Seaoat. Empty Re: For Seaoat. 7/28/2013, 10:25 pm

Floridatexan

Floridatexan

The problem I have with this is the people that automatically wanted to find something wrong with the deceased and wished to exonerate the person who shot him dead.

16For Seaoat. Empty Re: For Seaoat. 7/28/2013, 10:27 pm

Sal

Sal

Floridatexan wrote:The problem I have with this is the people that automatically wanted to find something wrong with the deceased and wished to exonerate the person who shot him dead.  

 Bless you for expressing my feelings so succinctly. 

17For Seaoat. Empty Re: For Seaoat. 7/28/2013, 10:31 pm

2seaoat



IF A KILLING IS DECIDED TO BE JUSTIFIABLE HOMICIDE, IT IS NOT MANSLAUGHTER.



By golly......Sal got it right without stumbling all over himself.....both as to sequence and meaning. Please refer to the other thread. The sequence and the concepts are important, and the above circular logic does not explain your lack of understanding as to sequence and concepts.......so Bob how exactly do they get to the justifiable homicide verdict? Is there a sequence, or do we just say its justifiable homocide and it is not manslaughter..........go take your prius apart, and then do not follow a sequence when you reassemble..........concepts matter and the sequence of those concepts matter, but your circular logic has been fun.....like a 78 rpm album and a pint of MD 20/20, but that is what happens when I expect concepts to be understood and sequence understood.....Sal got it right away.

18For Seaoat. Empty Re: For Seaoat. 7/28/2013, 10:42 pm

Joanimaroni

Joanimaroni

Floridatexan wrote:The problem I have with this is the people that automatically wanted to find something wrong with the deceased and wished to exonerate the person who shot him dead.  

After reviewing evidence, a trial, and a verdict of not guilty....Zimmerman was exonerated.....nothing automatic about it.


On the other hand some people researched, skipped, and dismissed evidence hoping to prove the death of Trayvon was not a case of self defense. As it turned out, Trayvon's past history was not necessary for the defense to prove the case.

19For Seaoat. Empty Re: For Seaoat. 7/28/2013, 11:38 pm

Hospital Bob

Hospital Bob

2seaoat wrote:IF A KILLING IS DECIDED TO BE JUSTIFIABLE HOMICIDE,  IT IS NOT MANSLAUGHTER.  



By golly......Sal got it right without stumbling all over himself.....both as to sequence and meaning.    Please refer to the other thread.   The sequence and the concepts are important, and the above circular logic does not explain your lack of understanding as to sequence and concepts.......so Bob how exactly do they get to the justifiable homicide verdict?   Is there a sequence, or do we just say its justifiable homocide and it is not manslaughter..........go take your prius apart, and then do not follow a sequence when you reassemble..........concepts matter and the sequence of those concepts matter, but your circular logic has been fun.....like a 78 rpm album and a pint of MD 20/20, but that is what happens when I expect concepts to be understood and sequence understood.....Sal got it right away.  

The sequence developed like this because it's the only logical sequence to follow.

1. It was established that Martin is dead

2. It was established that Zimmerman shot and killed Martin

3. A reasonable doubt was then established that the shooting and killing of Martin was not unlawful.

4. The jury rendered it's verdict because it believed all three elements in the sequence had been met.

20For Seaoat. Empty Re: For Seaoat. 7/29/2013, 12:21 am

Guest


Guest

Sal wrote:
Floridatexan wrote:The problem I have with this is the people that automatically wanted to find something wrong with the deceased and wished to exonerate the person who shot him dead.  

 Bless you for expressing my feelings so succinctly. 

I'll exonerate anybody who gets their nose broken and head cracked on the cement. It's called self defense. Embrace it.

21For Seaoat. Empty Re: For Seaoat. 7/29/2013, 12:50 am

2seaoat



The sequence developed like this because it's the only logical sequence to follow.

1. It was established that Martin is dead

2. It was established that Zimmerman shot and killed Martin

3. A reasonable doubt was then established that the shooting and killing of Martin was not unlawful.

4. The jury rendered it's verdict because it believed all three elements in the sequence had been met.

Wrong again, but bless your heart for trying to make up the law as you go.............you are creative on 3 and 4.......I love that language A reasonable doubt was then established that the shooting and killing of Martin was not unlawful.

I have finally found the person responsible for writing the instructions on how to assemble my Chinese Diesel generator.....Bob you have been holding out on us.......you really are an agent of the Chinese sent to confuse and obliterate simple instructions......mission accomplished.....my generator finally worked, and I am certain that juries all over America need your gift for creativity to confuse them further......but A+ for creativity.

22For Seaoat. Empty Re: For Seaoat. 7/29/2013, 3:58 am

TEOTWAWKI

TEOTWAWKI

The best way to deal with these problems in my opinion is

This post was made by 2seaoat who is currently on your ignore list.

This post was made by Sal who is currently on your ignore list.

23For Seaoat. Empty Re: For Seaoat. 7/29/2013, 7:48 am

Hospital Bob

Hospital Bob

2seaoat wrote:I love that language A reasonable doubt was then established that the shooting and killing of Martin was not unlawful.


That's because the term "doubt" can be confusing when trying to use correct grammar in this context.

I first was going to write it this way...

A reasonable possibility was then established that the shooting and killing of Martin was not unlawful.

That appears to be more grammatically correct. But you can't really substitute the word possibility for doubt because the two are not really antonyms. So I went with doubt since that's the actual word found in the law. But it's still confusing because when you use that word in a sentence like this you can't decide if it's creating a double negative.
It's really just a language issue.


24For Seaoat. Empty Re: For Seaoat. 7/29/2013, 8:02 am

Hospital Bob

Hospital Bob

Actually it just occurred to me that,  rather than the word "possibility",  a better word which is an actual antonym to a "doubt" would be a "belief".

So this would be the best way to state it...

A reasonable belief was then established that the shooting and killing of Martin was not unlawful.

That sentence correctly covers both the legal standard and the burden of proof for a "manslaughter" verdict.

The standard defining what "manslaughter" is (a killing being"unlawful" or "without justification") was not met beyond a reasonable doubt.  

Or it can be stated thusly:  there was a reasonable belief that the standard defining what constitutes "manslaughter" (a killing being "unlawful" or "without justification") was not met.

Sponsored content



Back to top  Message [Page 1 of 1]

Pensacola Discussion Forum » General Discussion » For Seaoat.

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