Commanders Post at The Warpath  

Home | Forums | Donate | Shop




Go Back   Commanders Post at The Warpath > Off-Topic Discussion > Debating with the enemy

Debating with the enemy Discuss politics, current events, and other hot button issues here.


Trayvon Martin Case

Debating with the enemy


Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 07-10-2013, 03:53 PM   #1
saden1
MVP
 
saden1's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Seattle
Age: 45
Posts: 10,069
Re: Trayvon Martin Case

Quote:
Originally Posted by firstdown View Post
There is no evidence that Zimmerman started anything. Following a person is not against the law. That's the problem with their case. If there was evidence that Zim. started an altercation then he should be convicted.
If he can't show that he didn't start it then it's at the very least manslaughter. You can't simply claim self-defense and walk away and contrary to what JoeRedskins has to say on the matter you have to show it was in fact self-defense and poke holes in the prosecutors claims.
__________________
"The Redskins have always suffered from chronic organizational deformities under Snyder."

-Jenkins
saden1 is offline  
Old 07-10-2013, 04:49 PM   #2
JoeRedskin
Contains football related knowledge
 
JoeRedskin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Second Star On The Right
Age: 62
Posts: 10,401
Re: Trayvon Martin Case

Quote:
Originally Posted by saden1 View Post
If he can't show that he didn't start it then it's at the very least manslaughter. You can't simply claim self-defense and walk away and contrary to what JoeRedskins has to say on the matter you have to show it was in fact self-defense and poke holes in the prosecutors claims.
Damn. For a smart guy, you can truly be pig-headedly dumb. Show me applicable Florida law supporting your assertion. Florida law is clearly stated in the pattern jury instructions given on this issue. At the conclusion of this case, the judge is going to tell these jurors: "If in your consideration of the issue of self-defense, you have a reasonable doubt on the question of whether the defendant was justified in the use of deadly force, you should find the defendant not guilty."

To be clear, captain deflection, GZ is not simply "claim[ing] self-defense and walk[ing] away." Again (for the third time), through admissible evidence, without speculation and without argumentative characterizations, demonstrate how the State:

(1) has eliminated all reasonable doubt that GZ was "justified in using deadly force [because] he reasonably believe[d] that such force [was] necessary to prevent, one, imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or another, or, two, the imminent commission of aggravated battery against himself or another."; and

(2) has eliminated "all reasonable doubt on the question of whether the defendant was justified in the use of deadly force".
__________________
Strap it up, hold onto the ball, and let’s go.
JoeRedskin is offline  
Closed Thread


Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -4. The time now is 12:36 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, vBulletin Solutions Inc.
We have no official affiliation with the Washington Commanders or the NFL.
Page generated in 3.58907 seconds with 11 queries