Will jurors just forget what they heard?

Status
Not open for further replies.
evince said:
science is not up for debate.


want to pretend he was an adult?

your a fucking idiot for pretending the laws and science don't consider him a child
Click to expand...
IN Florida, a 17 year old is considered an adult for criminal purposes. I don't know of any state that doesn't prosecute a 17 year old as an adult for the commission of a felony, so, you are wrong about the law viewing a 17 year old as an adult.
 
Professor Baxter said:
Your wife said I could try it on her tonight. j/k... YOU SET ME UP! Twice!

Yeah, I don't think you would achieve that 1 time out 10, with two people of relatively equal strength and in the rain.

Anyway, still it's not one thing or the other but the entirety of his claims. Again, Zimmerman was getting owned so hard, Trayvon saw his gun and moved for it, but Zimmerman was able to draw and shoot cleanly. It does not add up.
Click to expand...

Yes, the guy who was just beating the crap out of him to almost the point of unconsciousness wasn't able to struggle with him to take away the gun? A lot doesn't add up, in my opinion.
 
Socrtease said:
IN Florida, a 17 year old is considered an adult for criminal purposes. I don't know of any state that doesn't prosecute a 17 year old as an adult for the commission of a felony, so, you are wrong about the law viewing a 17 year old as an adult.
Click to expand...

How about as the victim of a crime? Is it different?
 
Professor Baxter said:
No, I had not heard that testimony. It's very interesting. I also did not hear Zimmerman claim that there was any sort of struggle for the gun or that Martin ever touched the gun. But what if Martin did touch the gun? Hmmm? You and people like sf, who ARE INVESTED in the idea of Zimmerman's innocence, continue to ask me to believe that something happened contrary to Zimmerman's claims, but to entertain that it might negatively impact Zimmerman's case is speculation.

Zimmerman seemed to claim he was suddenly able to draw and shoot cleanly, while for some time prior Martin so dominated Zimmerman that Zimmerman could not land a punch, effectively reverse positions or, some claim, even open his mouth. Still seems like an improbable reversal.
Click to expand...

Since you want to think in only black and white, answer me this.
It's off topic; but when I was a kid, a neighbor was involved in a horrific accident.
He was parked at the top of a hill and a car hit him head on.
The impact pushed the engine through the firewall and crushed his little daughter.
He carried his wife, who had been knocked out, and the body of his daughter out of the truck; because he was worried there would be a fire.
When the ambulance arrived, he was sitting next to them waiting.
Upon arrival at the hospital, it was discovered that he had moved them, by walking on two broken ankles.
How was he able to do that?

There have been reports of a person lifting very heavy objects off of someone, so heavy it would normally be impossilbe.
How are they able to do that?

You want to completly ignore muscle memory and such.

You and people like desh, who ARE INVESTED in the idea of Zimmerman's guilt, continue to ask me to believe that something happened contrary to Zimmerman's claims, but to entertain that it might have a negative impact on your preconceived opinion is speculation.
(see how I did that)
 
USFREEDOM911 said:
So it's your assertion that someone in the middle of an altercation automatically knows how serious his injuries are or are going to be?
Do you gauge it by how much blood you THINK is flowing down the back of your head?
Click to expand...
What I am telling you is the standard for self defense is objective. If you are a complete coward, you don't get to shoot someone because that look they gave you made you think they were going to kill you.
 
3.6(f) JUSTIFIABLE USE OF DEADLY FORCE (in part)

The use of deadly force is justifiable only if the defendant reasonably believes that the force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to [himself] [herself] while resisting:

1. another’s attempt to murder [him] [her], or

2. any attempt to commit (applicable felony) upon [him] [her], or

3. any attempt to commit (applicable felony) upon or in any dwelling, residence, or vehicle occupied by [him] [her].
 
USFREEDOM911 said:
Since you want to think in only black and white, answer me this.
It's off topic; but when I was a kid, a neighbor was involved in a horrific accident.
He was parked at the top of a hill and a car hit him head on.
The impact pushed the engine through the firewall and crushed his little daughter.
He carried his wife, who had been knocked out, and the body of his daughter out of the truck; because he was worried there would be a fire.
When the ambulance arrived, he was sitting next to them waiting.
Upon arrival at the hospital, it was discovered that he had moved them, by walking on two broken ankles.
How was he able to do that?

There have been reports of a person lifting very heavy objects off of someone, so heavy it would normally be impossilbe.
How are they able to do that?

You want to completly ignore muscle memory and such.

You and people like desh, who ARE INVESTED in the idea of Zimmerman's guilt, continue to ask me to believe that something happened contrary to Zimmerman's claims, but to entertain that it might have a negative impact on your preconceived opinion is speculation.
(see how I did that)
Click to expand...

Your story has nothing to do with with muscle memory. It's more about being in shock and the effects of adrenaline. It has no relevance to this incident or my points either as nobody was trying to contest your friend.

But are you saying Zimmerman's muscle memory took over because.... he spent a lot of time practicing his draw? Maybe, he sat up at nights thinking about how someday he'd get the chance and fantasizing about how quickly he would act to kill? Maybe on one of those assholes that always gets away with it? You want me to consider that? Call up the defense and tell them to introduce that in some way.

What you are asking for is speculation. You are saying we should consider the possibility that something happened which the defense did not claim or introduce evidence for to exonerate the defendant.
 
Socrtease said:
What I am telling you is the standard for self defense is objective. If you are a complete coward, you don't get to shoot someone because that look they gave you made you think they were going to kill you.
Click to expand...

But that is what the entire premiss is based on.
If someone's actions lead you to believe that your life, or someone else's, is in immenent danger; you have the right to use deadly force.

Or would you find a Police Officer guilty of murder, because it was discovered that the item the dead person was pointing at the officer, in the dark, was a cell phone and not a gun.
 
Socrtease said:
The jury instruction in Florida says that is exactly what is required. He has to believe that he is in danger of immediate great bodily harm or death.
Click to expand...

So you don't believe that someone sitting on your chest and hitting your head on the sidewalk would cause anyone to think that they might be in danger of immediate great bodily harm or death?
 
Professor Baxter said:
Your story has nothing to do with with muscle memory. It's more about being in shock and the effects of adrenaline. It has no relevance to this incident or my points either as nobody was trying to contest your friend.

But are you saying Zimmerman's muscle memory took over because.... he spent a lot of time practicing his draw? Maybe, he sat up at nights thinking about how someday he'd get the chance and fantasizing about how quickly he would act to kill? Maybe on one of those assholes that always gets away with it? You want me to consider that? Call up the defense and tell them to introduce that in some way.

What you are asking for is speculation. You are saying we should consider the possibility that something happened which the defense did not claim or introduce evidence for to exonerate the defendant.
Click to expand...

So all my presentations are speculative; but all of your speculations are factual?
Is that about the gist of this?
 
USFREEDOM911 said:
But that is what the entire premiss is based on.
If someone's actions lead you to believe that your life, or someone else's, is in immenent danger; you have the right to use deadly force.

Or would you find a Police Officer guilty of murder, because it was discovered that the item the dead person was pointing at the officer, in the dark, was a cell phone and not a gun.
Click to expand...

The belief has to be reasonable not accurate. If the cop said he believed his life was in danger because he saw the person was pointing a cell phone at him, that would obviously be unreasonable. If he said he thought the person was pointing a gun at him I would have other questions before being comfortable that the belief was reasonable.

Like it or not cops are held to different standard. But do you have such a case where a cop beat a murder charge on self defense or is this based based on an episode of Law and Order?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top