or Connect
Styleforum › Forums › General › Current Events, Power and Money › killing Trayvon
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

killing Trayvon - Page 277

post #4141 of 6250
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ataturk View Post

http://blogs.wsj.com/law/2013/07/14/legal-insights-on-the-zimmerman-verdict/
This guy wrote a textbook on criminal law and doesn't even know the burden of proof is on the prosecution to disprove self defense in pretty much every state, and has been for a long time -- long before stand your ground? Or is he just trying to be misleading?

A civil trial will be interesting because I think the immunity hearing will require him to prove self defense by a preponderance, and I think he will be able to do it.
post #4142 of 6250
Quote:
Originally Posted by NoVaguy View Post

True, but I suspect the wrinkle here in a civil action would be that Zimmerman can be forced to testify in state court, now that double jeopardy does not apply at the state level.

As Ata says -
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ataturk View Post

Not that I think he would have to, but why does Zimmerman care whether has to testify in a civil suit? What hard questions are there for him to answer that he hasn't already addressed in the five or six interviews he did with the police?

Zimmerman even took and passed two lie detector tests for the police. There's not a whole lot there he has to be afraid of. It's a big reason why he didn't have to testify at the criminal trial, the prosecution helpfully put in his testimony by way of his statements to the police.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ant702 View Post

I bet'cha the lint at the bottom of my right pocket, Z will not see 2014!

I wouldn't want your lint even if you were giving it away with a free bowl of soup.
Quote:
Originally Posted by joshuadowen View Post

This, btw, is why I don't see his lawyers being prepared to sue anyone for defamation. I don't see how they could make any sort of defamation case without putting him on the stand. While testifying at all doesn't waive his right to refuse to self-incriminate, I don't see how he'd avoid it. Part of proving the defamation case would require him getting on the stand and testifying that the defamatory statement wasn't true, at which point he's really opened the door to a lot of questions he probably doesn't want to answer.

He already has sued for defamation.

http://www.hlntv.com/article/2012/12/06/zimmerman-files-suit-against-nbc-defamation

The civil suit was put on hold pending the result fo the criminal trial. Although honestly the outcome of the criminal trial will have little impact on the civil suit.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hayward View Post

The Nation's quasi-Stalinist rhetoric aside, I don't disagree.

Perhaps I am being obtuse, but it seems like a lot of people in this thread fail to understand the nuance of racism. There are an infinite number of shades of white, pink, red, brown, and black, and none of them necessarily like or respect each other in many places. Africa, Latin America, and the Caribbean are chock-full of social structures where one group thinks they're better than the others because they see themselves as more civilized, more evolved, or simply "more white". Even if you regard George Zimmerman as not being white based strictly on his DNA, it's pretty clear that he and his family are white acculturated. And to argue that he is incapable of racism because he has had isolated positive interactions with black folks in certain circumstances, or even on a regular basis, is ridiculous.

He picked on Martin because of how he looked. Every time he saw someone who looked like Trayvon Martin in his neighborhood he called the police, even when there was no reason to.

There's no evidence of that. Yes, the people who he called the police on were black, but that doesn't mean "every time" he saw a black person he called the police. His stated reason for calling the police on Trayvon was that he was 1. someone he didn't recognize, 2. Walking alone in the rain with a hoodie concealing his identity, 3. Acting as if he was on drugs. We know from the autopsy that Trayvon used drugs. It's pretty clear he was on his way to consume more illegal drugs. That is the profile of a suspicious person. Zimmerman had every reason to investigate further.

Quote:
That doesn't necessarily mean that he wasn't subsequently put in a position where he had to legally defend himself. But it certainly casts a lot of doubt on his side of the story.

It does no such thing. You read into it what you want, not what actually took place.
Quote:
And in the final analysis here,the possibility that Zimmerman's take on events was accepted by the jury due to their own racist assumptions about Trayvon Martin is inescapable.

Of course it's escapable. The Prosecution did not prove their case beyond a reasonable doubt. Zimmerman's version of events is entirely irrelevant if the state doesn't cross that initial hurdle.
Quote:
That may not necessarily be the case. But it Zimmerman Drew and shot his firearm after he was engaged by Martin, how come none of Martin's DNA is on the handgun? Shootings, especially at close range, are not squeaky clean like you see on TV.

You didn't watch more than 5 minutes of the trial, did you?
Quote:
The best you can say here is that there was not enough evidence to convict. So the process worked, but the institution failed.

What institution are you referring to? What the hell does that crap even mean?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ataturk View Post

http://blogs.wsj.com/law/2013/07/14/legal-insights-on-the-zimmerman-verdict/
This guy wrote a textbook on criminal law and doesn't even know the burden of proof is on the prosecution to disprove self defense in pretty much every state, and has been for a long time -- long before stand your ground? Or is he just trying to be misleading?

He's just trying to be misleading. The self-defense law of FLA was on the books long before SYG. And this case had nothing to do with SYG.
post #4143 of 6250
post #4144 of 6250
1373831253060_zps866ab4b8.jpg
post #4145 of 6250
Wow, DU just published a photo of the jurors. I can't believe they did this.
Warning: Spoiler! (Click to show)
1069794_184385181730952_1668018935_n_zps1d5340a8.jpg
post #4146 of 6250
Youtube comments never fail to disappoint.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2ywTn4961e8
post #4147 of 6250
Quote:
Originally Posted by harvey_birdman View Post

Wow, DU just published a photo of the jurors. I can't believe they did this.
Warning: Spoiler! (Click to show)
1069794_184385181730952_1668018935_n_zps1d5340a8.jpg

lol
post #4148 of 6250
Like this?
Quote:
JOE LAWRENCE 1 minute ago

Goddamn I'm so ready for another civil war. White people would wipe niggers off the face of the planet. Country boy strong, bitches.

Dad???
post #4149 of 6250
Quote:
Originally Posted by harvey_birdman View Post

He already has sued for defamation.

http://www.hlntv.com/article/2012/12/06/zimmerman-files-suit-against-nbc-defamation

The civil suit was put on hold pending the result fo the criminal trial. Although honestly the outcome of the criminal trial will have little impact on the civil suit.

 

Interesting. That looks like a very hard case for him to win. Prima facie case for defamation requires:

 

1. False statement purporting to be fact - difficult but not impossible to argue that creative editing rises to the level of a "false statement"

2. Publication of that statement - yes this obviously happened

3. Fault on the part of the person making the statement amounting to intent - can probably show this

4. Some harm caused to the person who was the subject of the statement - this is where I think the case falls apart. Even if you conclude that the editing amounts to a false statement, it's not clear what the harm was.

 

Did NBC contribute to the public believing that Zimmerman is a racist? Probably not as much as the trial itself did. Or every other news outlet. On top of this, there are a lot of actual facts floating around out there that lead can lead to a reasonable conclusion that Zimmerman is in fact a racist. This makes it hard to argue the NBC's actions were defamatory.

 

Also, even if you conclude that NBC substantially contributed to people inaccurately labeling Zimmerman as a racist, it's still hard to see the actual harm. The facts that came out during the investigation are sufficiently damning to Zimmerman's character. I agree with the verdict based on the evidence, but that doesn't absolve Zimmerman of moral guilt. He's still a piece of trash and there are number of reasons to believe so that have nothing to do with NBC's poor choice of editing the 911 call. 

post #4150 of 6250
Quote:
Originally Posted by HORNS View Post

Like this?
Dad???

I think it might be one of Scarphes other screen names.
post #4151 of 6250
Quote:
Originally Posted by redcaimen View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by HORNS View Post

Like this?
Dad???

I think it might be one of Scarphes other screen names.

No shit. The hate bleeds through with some people.
post #4152 of 6250
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ataturk View Post

Not that I think he would have to, but why does Zimmerman care whether has to testify in a civil suit? What hard questions are there for him to answer that he hasn't already addressed in the five or six interviews he did with the police?
I don't purport to know what he would say if he testified, but theoretical concerns could include:
1. Testimony might undermine his claims.
2. Public reaction.
3. Could furnish evidence for federal prosecution.
4. Could be used to support perjury/false statement/obstruction charges if prosecutors claim the testimony is inconsistent with other statements or evidence or their version of the facts.
Emphasis on theoretical. Even without knowing what he would say, I suspect the likelihood of 3 or 4 is very, very low.
post #4153 of 6250
Quote:
Originally Posted by joshuadowen View Post

Interesting. That looks like a very hard case for him to win. Prima facie case for defamation requires:

1. False statement purporting to be fact - difficult but not impossible to argue that creative editing rises to the level of a "false statement"
2. Publication of that statement - yes this obviously happened
3. Fault on the part of the person making the statement amounting to intent - can probably show this
4. Some harm caused to the person who was the subject of the statement - this is where I think the case falls apart. Even if you conclude that the editing amounts to a false statement, it's not clear what the harm was.

Did NBC contribute to the public believing that Zimmerman is a racist? Probably not as much as the trial itself did. Or every other news outlet. On top of this, there are a lot of actual facts floating around out there that lead can lead to a reasonable conclusion that Zimmerman is in fact a racist. This makes it hard to argue the NBC's actions were defamatory.

Also, even if you conclude that NBC substantially contributed to people inaccurately labeling Zimmerman as a racist, it's still hard to see the actual harm. The facts that came out during the investigation are sufficiently damning to Zimmerman's character. I agree with the verdict based on the evidence, but that doesn't absolve Zimmerman of moral guilt. He's still a piece of trash and there are number of reasons to believe so that have nothing to do with NBC's poor choice of editing the 911 call. 

I've gone as record as taking all comers for a $1 bet that NBC settles. Want to put your money where your analysis is?
post #4154 of 6250
Quote:
Originally Posted by harvey_birdman View Post


I've gone as record as taking all comers for a $1 bet that NBC settles. Want to put your money where your analysis is?

 

Hah I think you are probably right. The fact that they've fired the people responsible already makes their path pretty clear. Doesn't change my opinion that it's a weak case for the plaintiff.

post #4155 of 6250
Quote:
Originally Posted by Piobaire View Post

We still should not forget Zimmerman did kill Martin and it was most certainly an avoidable event triggered by Zimmerman's decisions. This whole fiasco has only racially polarized the willing fools (both sides) more and convinced willing fools there is no place for them in US society. I think the damage this circus has created is hard to fathom...and Chicago has had how many black male teenagers murdered in the last month?

Zimmerman's actions lead to disaster. If he'd had the slightest bit of sense, he would never have gotten out of his car.

I don't (and frankly can't) know whether Zimmerman is a racist, but I would like to think that the current circus will make people think about their preconceptions about young black men--whatever they are wearing and wherever they are walking.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Current Events, Power and Money
Styleforum › Forums › General › Current Events, Power and Money › killing Trayvon