Robin Of House Hill Posted July 9, 2013 Share Posted July 9, 2013 I'm sorry. I read that as incontinent couch commando, and almost peed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DanteGabriel Posted July 9, 2013 Share Posted July 9, 2013 Damn. First Shyke yesterday, and now you. The first times I've ever agreed 100% with one of your posts. Perfect analogy.Don't worry, I'm sure you'll be back to being wrong all the time soon enough. :P Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tempra Posted July 9, 2013 Share Posted July 9, 2013 City Manager was called as witnesses to testify why he and the Mayor ignored police advice by having the Martin family listen to the 911 tapes as a group. Also, there were no attorneys for the city or police present during that meeting. Smells fishy, right?ETA: Zimmerman will not testify and defense will rest tomorrow. Wow, that was fast.ETA2: apparently the mayor hasn't been called... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kouran Posted July 9, 2013 Share Posted July 9, 2013 Well I would guess the closing arguments would be on Thursday and the instructions to the jury Friday. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tempra Posted July 9, 2013 Share Posted July 9, 2013 And Zimmerman home for the weekend? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DanteGabriel Posted July 9, 2013 Share Posted July 9, 2013 And Zimmerman home for the weekend?To prepare for the civil suit? Which I hope breaks him and puts him and his shitty family in penury for years? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Raidne Posted July 9, 2013 Share Posted July 9, 2013 I am literally saving a copy of this to my desktop at this point to repost as needed:776.032 Immunity from criminal prosecution and civil action for justifiable use of force.(1) A person who uses force as permitted in s. 776.012, s. 776.013, or s. 776.031 is justified in using such force and is immune from criminal prosecution and civil action for the use of such force, unless the person against whom force was used is a law enforcement officer, as defined in s. 943.10(14), who was acting in the performance of his or her official duties and the officer identified himself or herself in accordance with any applicable law or the person using force knew or reasonably should have known that the person was a law enforcement officer. As used in this subsection, the term “criminal prosecution” includes arresting, detaining in custody, and charging or prosecuting the defendant.(2) A law enforcement agency may use standard procedures for investigating the use of force as described in subsection (1), but the agency may not arrest the person for using force unless it determines that there is probable cause that the force that was used was unlawful.(3) The court shall award reasonable attorney’s fees, court costs, compensation for loss of income, and all expenses incurred by the defendant in defense of any civil action brought by a plaintiff if the court finds that the defendant is immune from prosecution as provided in subsection (1).Tempra explained in the last thread that Zimmerman waived his subsection (2) immunity rights, likely as a strategic move.How this will play out confuses me a bit. If the jury acquits Zimmerman, will that function as a ruling that his use of force was justifiable? Or would some kind of res judicata argument have to made?In any case, I can't see how it's going to play out like OJ Part 2, where the guy was guilty by a "preponderance of the evidence" even if not guilty "beyond a reasonable doubt" because, as far as I can tell, justifiable force is justifiable force. Standard seems to stay the same in both contexts as a bar to both types of lawsuits.FWIW, I think this is an ugly beast of a law that tears at the logic of the entire American legal system, but since the operation of this particular law is why Zimmerman wasn't even arrested and this whole thing blew up in the first place, we might as well remember that it exists. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Madfunkymonkey Posted July 9, 2013 Share Posted July 9, 2013 To prepare for the civil suit? Which I hope breaks him and puts him and his shitty family in penury for years?As another poster already stated if GZ is found not guilty there will be no civil suit against him under Florida law. But GZ won't have to worry about money if he is found not guilty because he has a slam dunk case against NBC. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DanteGabriel Posted July 9, 2013 Share Posted July 9, 2013 As another poster already stated if GZ is found not guilty there will be no civil suit against him under Florida law. But GZ won't have to worry about money if he is found not guilty because he has a slam dunk case against NBC.Well then, I suppose he'll only have to worry about vigilante justice. Poetic. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robin Of House Hill Posted July 9, 2013 Share Posted July 9, 2013 To prepare for the civil suit? Which I hope breaks him and puts him and his shitty family in penury for years?They can't touch his family. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tempra Posted July 9, 2013 Share Posted July 9, 2013 To prepare for the civil suit? Which I hope breaks him and puts him and his shitty family in penury for years?Regardless of what you think of Zimmerman, what did his wife do to qualify as "shitty?" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DanteGabriel Posted July 9, 2013 Share Posted July 9, 2013 Regardless of what you think of Zimmerman, what did his wife do to qualify as "shitty?"Oh, I'm mostly talking about his brother and father. The wife? I pity her. Married to an abusive chickenshit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Raidne Posted July 9, 2013 Share Posted July 9, 2013 I'm actually finding the "rapidly shrinking sphere of moral righteousness" exhibited here kind of fascinating, like an artistic interpretation of the course of every thread that has ever been on this subject. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Raidne Posted July 9, 2013 Share Posted July 9, 2013 Oh, I'm mostly talking about his brother and father. The wife? I pity her. Married to an abusive chickenshit.You're actually supposed to be against vigilante justice if you're against vigilante justice. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DanteGabriel Posted July 9, 2013 Share Posted July 9, 2013 Hey Raidne, go ahead and just tell me what snide crap you're trying to imply about me instead of teasing it out in some tedious lawyerly way.I'm too tired to puzzle it out through the rapidly expanding sphere of smug legalism. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NestorMakhnosLovechild Posted July 9, 2013 Share Posted July 9, 2013 There's vigilante justice and then there's "vigilante justice" - the latter being calling the police to report suspicious activity and then trying to get a fix on the suspicious person to direct the police upon their arrival. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NestorMakhnosLovechild Posted July 9, 2013 Share Posted July 9, 2013 Oh, I'm mostly talking about his brother and father. The wife? I pity her. Married to an abusive chickenshit.Abusive chickenshit.Fascinating. Tell me what else you see in the inkblot. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DanteGabriel Posted July 9, 2013 Share Posted July 9, 2013 Abusive chickenshit.Fascinating. Tell me what else you see in the inkblot.I see a dead innocent teenager whose name has been dragged through the mud in front of his family and friends. What does your penetrating legal insight reveal to you about that? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NestorMakhnosLovechild Posted July 9, 2013 Share Posted July 9, 2013 I see a dead innocent teenager whose name has been dragged through the mud in front of his family and friends. What does your penetrating legal insight reveal to you about that?That you are assuming facts not in evidence.If Trayvon Martin attacked George Zimmerman - he was not innocent, either legally or morally, and he was a victim of an entirely justifiable homicide. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DanteGabriel Posted July 9, 2013 Share Posted July 9, 2013 That you are assuming facts not in evidence.If Trayvon Martin attacked George Zimmerman - he was not innocent, either legally or morally, and he was a victim of an entirely justifiable homicide.That's a big "if" and we only have one person's word on who attacked whom. A person who's already lied plenty of times in the past.But I'm not trying to re-argue the entire shit circus of a trial. I'm just angry that the state fucked up this case so bad, but I suppose it was compounded by the Sanford PD's incompetence (or negligence) in the initial investigation. It's a shitty case that tells us a lot of shitty things about our society. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.