 sj |
||
|
||
BS: George Zimmerman defense-' Evidence withheld'
|
|
|
Subject: RE: BS: Zimmerman defense-' Evidence withheld' From: Don(Wyziwyg)T Date: 18 Jun 13 - 05:11 AM ""Don, every day, in thousands of cases, the lawyers for the parties decide what they are obliged to disclose. It's part of the disclosure process. You need to read up on your legal practice."" UK law Richard! US law, as practised, seems (and I'm open to correction on this) to take a rather different view. They seem to be saying that if the prosecution has it, the defence must be fully aware of it too. Maybe they don't place as much trust in their lawyers as seems to be the case here. Don T. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Zimmerman defense-' Evidence withheld' From: Don(Wyziwyg)T Date: 18 Jun 13 - 05:01 AM ""But since you "SHOUTED", Bobert will not bother to read anything you wore- Only he and those who support him are allowed to "SHOUT" ."" The difference BB is that I wasn't shouting AT Bobert! Emphasis on certain words will clarify the meaning and intent of a passage. "Answer my question!" when capitalised is shouting at the recipient, and I have to say I would share Bobert's anger at that. None of which, of course alters my viewpoint on the topic. Don T. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Zimmerman defense-' Evidence withheld' From: Greg F. Date: 17 Jun 13 - 04:33 PM So, *you* rate Negros as below jackasses, as well as considering "Black and a Democrat " the same as "dumb Ni**er"? Since he used "just" in *his* posting. He considers that *any* second class citizen must refer to Negros, from his postings. All YOUR words, BeardedBullshit, not mine. In addition to other problems, you apparently have difficulty in reading and/or comprehending the English Language. Get help. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Zimmerman defense-' Evidence withheld' From: Bobert Date: 17 Jun 13 - 04:07 PM Okay, Bruce... Let's say that Martin had said that he was going to check out a house to burglarize and beat the crap out of the owner of the house... Let's also say that he had said this just the night before... Unless Zimmerman knew that this prior to following and murdering Martin why is it relevant... We do character witnesses for defend0ants, not murder victims... The bottom line here is simple... In the South we have way too many judges who are either elected or appointed by the local powers at be... That is my beef here... It's not that I don't believe that it's up to the judge to put a gag order in place on the prosecutor and defense attorney... It's that the South, especially, has a very bad record with "wink, wink" justice... Any "fair minded" judge would/should have issued a gag order... It's not that Zimmerman won't get a fair trial... It's that Martin won't and he doesn't have any right to appeal... And for the record, it is very unusual for me to SCREAM... When I was using "caps" to write "scream" it wasn't a form of screaming... It was a way of getting you to associate the word with the intent... If you don't get that copy my post and take it to an English professor and have him or her explain it to you... B~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Zimmerman defense-' Evidence withheld' From: Richard Bridge Date: 17 Jun 13 - 03:01 PM Don, every day, in thousands of cases, the lawyers for the parties decide what they are obliged to disclose. It's part of the disclosure process. You need to read up on your legal practice. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Zimmerman defense-' Evidence withheld' From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity Date: 17 Jun 13 - 02:44 PM The wordage might have been what it was, but the intent is obviously there....however, your point is 'so noted'. Bobert is just a soled out Democrat. He doesn't get past their 'talking points', and stays confined within them..though I love the guy...the problem is, is that he is more dedicated to the Democrat Party, than they are to him, his best interests, or America's....they are just the other shills for the banksters, just like the Republicans, so that the national dialogue is also confined to what the party dictates that it 'should be'.....but what it really is, is distraction fodder, to keep the American people blinded, and occupied with bullshit issues, while steering us away from the bigger picture....and to keep the partisans, who think that they are so astute in such matters, preoccupied and busy with mental masturbation!!! Sorry guys, but that's the way it REALLY is!! GfS |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Zimmerman defense-' Evidence withheld' From: beardedbruce Date: 17 Jun 13 - 02:23 PM GfS Greggie boy had stated "I'm starting to believe that BullshitBruce thinks he's a Negro, instead of just a jackass." I stated that So, *you* rate Negros as below jackasses, as well as considering "Black and a Democrat " the same as "dumb Ni**er"? Since he used "just" in *his* posting. He considers that *any* second class citizen must refer to Negros, from his postings. And Bobert never says one word about how those who support him are being "rude, boorish and 99% wrong", you know- that would be from the other set of rules he has for the "master" group that agree with him. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Zimmerman defense-' Evidence withheld' From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity Date: 17 Jun 13 - 02:15 PM Well well, first Greg slurs Bruce because he says he is Jewish, and now it's because , "*you* rate Negros as below jackasses, as well as considering "Black and a Democrat " the same as "dumb Nigger"? (I put back the G's, as not to be 'discriminatory')..It sounds like if he is using these words, as a debasing tool and tactic, because he's run out of 'other' derogatory names, it sounds like he's got some REAL bigotry issues....that's one reason I've called him a 'so-called liberal'!..among other hypocrites on here...hey Greg, come on, clean up your act..starting with your ugly hatreds in your head...I'm surprised Bobart hasn't jumped your shit for it, already.......unless.... GfS |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Zimmerman defense-' Evidence withheld' From: beardedbruce Date: 17 Jun 13 - 02:03 PM btw, Bobert, "If" is a conditional- I do not claim that the statement *is* on the phone, but *if* it was, it would have a good chance of being admissible. I will continue to point this out each time you claim there is no reason for the prosecution to obey the law. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Zimmerman defense-' Evidence withheld' From: beardedbruce Date: 17 Jun 13 - 01:49 PM Greggie boy, "I'm starting to believe that BullshitBruce thinks he's a Negro, instead of just a jackass." So, *you* rate Negros as below jackasses, as well as considering "Black and a Democrat " the same as "dumb Ni**er"? And Bobert supports you, or at least keeps quiet because you help attack those he disagrees with... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Zimmerman defense-' Evidence withheld' From: beardedbruce Date: 17 Jun 13 - 01:45 PM Again, for Bobert and his sensitive ego- with emphasis removed, so he can understand. Date: 04 Jun 13 - 11:10 AM And what IF a text that was kept from the defense was like this: "I'm gonna check out *** house, and see what I can take. And if anybody gets in my way, I'll beat the shit outta him." Sure want to be sure that the defense can't get anything like that- why , the lynching might not go as Bobert wants. Such a text message *might* lead a reasonable jury to believe that Zimmerman was attacked, and that makes a difference, doesn't it? "He stalked the kid, the kid died, shot with his gun." or "He followed a suspected burglar, was attacked by the suspect, and in fear of his life while having his head pounded into the cement, shot the suspect with his gun" Whether he showed good judgement in following the suspect I will not state- but *this* is as likely as any other scenario. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Zimmerman defense-' Evidence withheld' From: beardedbruce Date: 17 Jun 13 - 01:38 PM Don T. I agree with your entire post- though I did give a hypothetical text that would probably be admissible as evidence. But since you "SHOUTED", Bobert will not bother to read anything you wore- Only he and those who support him are allowed to "SHOUT" . The rest of us are 2nd class people who should know their place and not bring up anything to disturb those who are (self-defined) "correct" And that is what I am the most annoyed with. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Zimmerman defense-' Evidence withheld' From: Don(Wyziwyg)T Date: 17 Jun 13 - 01:28 PM Trying to make a point with a single post! Right, how about this. Bobert worries that the defence will try to prejudice the case. He is RIGHT! Given half a chance, they WILL! Simple. Bruce is concerned that the prosecution will try to prejudice the case to secutre a conviction. He is RIGHT! Given half a chance, they WILL! Simple. Bruce believes that the prosecution should hand over to the defence, anything which MIGHT be evidence. He is RIGHT! They SHOULD! Bobert believes that the phone cannot contain anything which would constitute evidence. He is not in a position to make that statement, since only two of many possible saved items have been mentioned. True that, on the face of it, those two would be irrelevant, except as pertaining to the victim's character, and even that is dubious given that replica and toy guns look frighteningly real these days. But nobody except the prosecution knows what else is on that phone, and that is why the defence must have sight of it, if a conviction is not to be overturned on appeal. THE JUDGE is the only person qualified to rule upon the admissibility of such evidence, since he is (supposedly) the only impartial party involved. Don T. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Zimmerman defense-' Evidence withheld' From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity Date: 17 Jun 13 - 12:22 PM YorkshireYankee ...Right on! GfS |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Zimmerman defense-' Evidence withheld' From: Greg F. Date: 17 Jun 13 - 12:12 PM Send me to the back of the bus. I'm starting to believe that BullshitBruce thinks he's a Negro, instead of just a jackass. So, Bullshit: how old were you in 1963? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Zimmerman defense-' Evidence withheld' From: beardedbruce Date: 17 Jun 13 - 11:43 AM Bobert, "From: Bobert - PM Date: 14 Jun 13 - 07:25 PM Screaming again, I see, bb... Now, if you want to re-answer the original question about the so-called evidence and can do it without SCREAMING then I will respond to it... B~" So, *You* can scream, and that is ok, but when *I* do so, it is wrong? The previous post was emphasis- And you have still not addressed my last three posts. Send me to the back of the bus. As I stated, a person who requires one set of rules for those he agrees with, and another set for those he does not agree with is a bigot. You are busy qualifying. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Zimmerman defense-' Evidence withheld' From: YorkshireYankee Date: 14 Jun 13 - 09:50 PM Aww, c'mon Bobert. ONE word in caps is not exactly screaming - it's just emphasis. From my POV, both of you - and Greg, too - have gotten to the point where there's way more personal attacks and emotive language in your posts than actual discussion. One person says something nasty/baits the other person - who responds in kind - and the "debate" deteriorates from there. Makes it kinda pointless to "discuss" it, don't it? I respect all of you, think you're all intelligent guys and can see where you're coming from. I'd just like to see debate without all the personal animosity. Passion does not require antagonistic behavior... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Zimmerman defense-' Evidence withheld' From: Bobert Date: 14 Jun 13 - 07:25 PM Screaming again, I see, bb... Now, if you want to re-answer the original question about the so-called evidence and can do it without SCREAMING then I will respond to it... B~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Zimmerman defense-' Evidence withheld' From: beardedbruce Date: 14 Jun 13 - 02:56 PM Bobert, You are the one who is strong at proclamations but weak or entirely failing in logic or honesty... "That's projectionism on your part... Proclaiming that you have answered the question and actually having provided a reasonable answer are two different things..." You have never addressed my response, except to say that it is not reasonable. Why, Can you even give a reason you reject it out of hand besides your conviction that Zimmerman should be lynched to make up for past injustices of the system? You have never provided any reason that the evidence SHOULD be withheld from the Defense, yet continue to protest any statement that the prosecution needs to play by the law in order to have a fair trial |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Zimmerman defense-' Evidence withheld' From: olddude Date: 14 Jun 13 - 02:41 PM Not a lawyer but as a former law enforcement officer the prosecution and defense are entitled to anything that was in possession at the time of the crime or alleged crime. If you withhold anything in discovery the case can be overturned. Yes a judge makes that decision but he is open to having the case retried or thrown out. You bet the prosecution has his cell phone, give the defense the other it is just smart. I respectfully disagree with those who say don't |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Zimmerman defense-' Evidence withheld' From: beardedbruce Date: 14 Jun 13 - 01:13 PM 200 |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Zimmerman defense-' Evidence withheld' From: beardedbruce Date: 14 Jun 13 - 01:10 PM Yassa, Bossman. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Zimmerman defense-' Evidence withheld' From: Bobert Date: 14 Jun 13 - 01:09 PM Wow... Two posts without a single episode... Good start... I'll read them later... Break time is over... B~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Zimmerman defense-' Evidence withheld' From: beardedbruce Date: 14 Jun 13 - 01:08 PM Again, Bobert, you attack me and do not discuss the answer I gave to your question. As this is not the first time, I have to conclude that you agree it is reason enough to be evidence, and thus you are an asshole for your continued discussion about "Pictures not being evidence " when the point is *** Evidence being withheld by the Prosecution. *** " Shear numbers of posts do not strengthen your arguments, bb... If you can't make a point with a single post then that points to nothing but spin and more spin... " And how many times are you going to bring up the non-relevant pictures? Sheer numbers of posts do not strengthen your ( nonexistent) argument. If you can't make a point with a single post then that points to nothing but spin and more spin... As someone I used to have some respect for once said. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Zimmerman defense-' Evidence withheld' From: beardedbruce Date: 14 Jun 13 - 01:06 PM Bobert, In other words, you refuse to address the issue. As I said, you are acting like a real asshole. If you have a problem with my example of possible evidence, let me know why and what you disagree with- denying that I have given one makes you a liar. And people who have one set of rules for those they agree with, and a different set for those they disagree with are bigots, whether they like the term or not. If the rules you apply to others do not apply to yourself, you might as well tell me to go sit in the back of the bus, or use separate water fountains. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Zimmerman defense-' Evidence withheld' From: Bobert Date: 14 Jun 13 - 01:00 PM Tell ya' what, bruce... First of all, I don't read any posts by anyone who feels they have to SCREAM... Second of all, nor do most people... Thirdly, people who feel they have to SCREAM at people are rude, boorish and 99% wrong... When you can act like a sane person and quit with your rude SCREAMING then maybe I'll read your stuff... Until then. you are SCREAMING in the middle of the forest all by yourself... Bye until you quit with the insane SCREAMING... B~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Zimmerman defense-' Evidence withheld' From: beardedbruce Date: 14 Jun 13 - 10:13 AM Again, Bobert, you attack me and DO NOT DISCUSS the answer I gave to your question. As this is not the first time, I have to conclude that you agree it is reason enough to be evidence, and thus YOU ARE AN ASSHOLE for your continued discussion about "Pictures not being evidence " when the point is EVIDENCE BEING WITHHELD BY THE PROSECUTION. " Shear numbers of posts do not strengthen your arguments, bb... If you can't make a point with a single post then that points to nothing but spin and more spin... " And HOW MANY times are you going to bring up the non-relevant pictures? Sheer numbers of posts DO NOT strengthen your ( nonexistent) argument. If you can't make a point with a single post then that points to nothing but spin and more spin... As someone I used to have some respect for once said. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Zimmerman defense-' Evidence withheld' From: Bobert Date: 14 Jun 13 - 10:06 AM Shear numbers of posts do not strengthen your arguments, bb... If you can't make a point with a single post then that points to nothing but spin and more spin... Guess better the first time, dude... B~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Zimmerman defense-' Evidence withheld' From: beardedbruce Date: 14 Jun 13 - 09:51 AM Bobert, YOU are the one who is strong at proclamations but weak or entirely failing in logic or honesty... "That's projectionism on your part... Proclaiming that you have answered the question and actually having provided a reasonable answer are two different things..." You have NEVER addressed my response, except to say that it is not reasonable. Why, Can you even give a reason you reject it out of hand besides YOUR conviction that Zimmerman should be lynched to make up for past injustices of the system? You have never provided ANY reason that the evidence SHOULD be withheld from the Defense, yet continue to protest any statement that the prosecution needs to play by the law IN ORDER TO HAVE A FAIR TRAIL. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Zimmerman defense-' Evidence withheld' From: beardedbruce Date: 14 Jun 13 - 09:45 AM From: beardedbruce - PM Date: 05 Jun 13 - 09:33 AM Bobert, "Tell me, anyone, how a picture that trevon took of himself a month before is fucking "evidence"??????????????????????????????????????? Or shut the fuck up about withheld so-called "evidence"... Yes, beardedbruce... You brought this up... Use your wildest imagination on how these pics are relevant to the evidence in this case... " My posts: *IF* Bobert sees no reason to require the prosecution TO FOLLOW THE LAW in this case, I see no difference between him and those who lynch people they are "sure" ( from news reports) have committed some crime. Date: 04 Jun 13 - 11:10 AM And what IF a text that was kept from the defense was like this: "I'm gonna check out *** house, and see what I can take. And if anybody gets in my way, I'll beat the shit outta him." Sure want to be sure that the defense can't get anything like that- why , the lynching might not go as Bobert wants. Such a text message MIGHT lead a reasonable jury to believe that Zimmerman was attacked, and that makes a difference, doesn't it? "He stalked the kid, the kid died, shot with his gun." OR "He followed a suspected burglar, was attacked by the suspect, and in fear of his life while having his head pounded into the cement, shot the suspect with his gun" Whether he showed good judgement in following the suspect I will not state- but THIS is as likely as any other scenario. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Zimmerman defense-' Evidence withheld' From: beardedbruce Date: 14 Jun 13 - 09:42 AM From: beardedbruce - PM Date: 04 Jun 13 - 11:10 AM And what IF a text that was kept from the defense was like this: "I'm gonna check out *** house, and see what I can take. And if anybody gets in my way, I'll beat the shit outta him." Sure want to be sure that the defense can't get anything like that- why , the lynching might not go as Bobert wants. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Zimmerman defense-' Evidence withheld' From: beardedbruce Date: 14 Jun 13 - 09:37 AM Bobert, YOU have never acknowledged, or discusses the strength of MY comment. Do I have to repeat it another time??? Have you forgotten it? Are you just ignoring anything you don't agree with? I gave you a sample text that WOULD HAVE BEEN EVIDENCE that could have been on the phone, and withheld by the prosecution - Yet you keep on about pictures? Why? YOUR posting as if I had not answered your request, WHICH I DID, is being an asshole. If you don't want to be considered an asshole, stop acting like one. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Zimmerman defense-' Evidence withheld' From: GUEST,gillymor Date: 14 Jun 13 - 09:08 AM From the Guardian re Stand Your Ground Laws. I've read elsewhere that Zimmerman's defense may try to use SYG if the jury trial doesn't work out. Considering Martin's ethnicity it could be his ace in the hole in Florida, if they're allowed. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Zimmerman defense-' Evidence withheld' From: Bobert Date: 14 Jun 13 - 08:29 AM No, bb, I am not "being an asshole" at all... That's projectionism on your part... Proclaiming that you have answered the question and actually having provided a reasonable answer are two different things... You are strong at proclamations but weak in logic or honesty... B~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Zimmerman defense-' Evidence withheld' From: beardedbruce Date: 14 Jun 13 - 08:23 AM TO REPEAT: Since Bobert continues... Bobert, I gave you a scenario where the TEXTS would be significant, and you keep going on about the PHOTOS. BOTH were withheld- Are you trying to get around the fact that I answered your question??? Or are you just being an asshole on general principles, as your racist friend Greggie is? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Zimmerman defense-' Evidence withheld' From: catspaw49 Date: 14 Jun 13 - 07:38 AM Thank you Richard for the link and the analysis. Spaw |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Zimmerman defense-' Evidence withheld' From: Richard Bridge Date: 14 Jun 13 - 12:25 AM The relevant UK law (as it seems to me) is discussed in part 4 of the Law Commission Report here - http://lawcommission.justice.gov.uk/docs/lc290_Partial_Defences_to_Murder.pdf My first thought is that it would be impossible under UK law for Zimmerman's use of a firearm to have been "reasonable force" for the purposes of the law of self defence since it would have been impossible under UK law for Zimmerman's carriage and discharge of a firearm to ahve been lawful. My second thought is that if one ignores the firearm element the defence of self defence would only have been possible if Martin attacked Zimmerman rather than the other way round. This becomes somewhat convoluted in that (assuming that Martin did not intend to kill Zimmerman - possibly a large assumption) if Martin genuinely and reasonably apprehended an assault on him by Zimmerman (a belief that I would have thought eminently reasonable) he would have been entitled to use reasonable force to defend himself from that apprehended assault, and the known damage to Zimmerman (if caused by Martin, another possible issue) would seem to be within that level of force. But (and so it goes round) it seems inescapable that if Martin attacked Zimmerman ( believing it to be in self defence) it is hard to doubt that Zimmerman would be likely to believe that he was being assaulted - in which case he would be entitled himself to use reasonable force. So there are two pathways to Zimmerman being convicted of murder. First if it be found that he attacked Martin, I think he would be guilty of murder under English law. Second if it be found that he was attacked by Martin but then used excessive force, he would be guilty. I do not see how, under English law, the use of an unlawful firearm could be anything other than excessive force. Another issue of fact would be whether Martin was merely trying to get away when Zimmerman shot him. If so the English law is beyond doubt, Zimmerman would be guilty. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Zimmerman defense-' Evidence withheld' From: Jack the Sailor Date: 13 Jun 13 - 09:29 PM " The district attorney, all the lawyers involved in the case, and most of the national pundits say the Stand Your Ground has nothing to do with this case. Why do so many Mudcatters even bring it up?" I don't know why they bring it up. I have guess. I'm pretty sure it was the excuse Sanford Law enforcement gave for not Prosecuting Zimmerman in the first place. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Zimmerman defense-' Evidence withheld' From: Bobert Date: 13 Jun 13 - 08:09 PM Come on, pdq... That is a ridiculous argument... Order v. suggestion, my butt... Look, dude... Zimmerman called the police... Not vice versa... The dispatcher told him to stay in his vehicle and that real police were being dispatched... Suggestion??? Get real, man... You are spinning faster than a top... B~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Zimmerman defense-' Evidence withheld' From: pdq Date: 13 Jun 13 - 08:00 PM "...he was legally bound to avoid the situation as the police ordered him to stand down..." Zimmerman said he was following the suspect and the dispatcher said "we don't need you to do that." First, that is a suggestion, not an order to "stand down". Second, it came from the dispatcher (not a cop) who has no authority to order a civilian to do anything. Besides, Zimmerman was the authorized neighborhood watchman at that time. "...I can't understand this f up stand your ground law. You have a duty to avoid such situations... The man who wrote the Stand Your Ground law says it does not apply in this case. The district attorney, all the lawyers involved in the case, and most of the national pundits say the Stand Your Ground has nothing to do with this case. Why do so many Mudcatters even bring it up? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Zimmerman defense-' Evidence withheld' From: Bobert Date: 13 Jun 13 - 07:35 PM Please explain, ol'ster, how pics from weeks or even days before Martin was murdered is evidence in this case... I mean, if there was one with Martin holding up a sign saying he was going to whup Zimmerman's ass, yeah... Haven't heard that such a pic existed or that Martin even knew that Zimmerman existed... Where, exactly, is any evidence???\ Martin smoked pot??? Last I heard that smoking pot wasn't a capital offense... B~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Zimmerman defense-' Evidence withheld' From: beardedbruce Date: 13 Jun 13 - 12:15 PM No arguement at all, old dude. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Zimmerman defense-' Evidence withheld' From: olddude Date: 13 Jun 13 - 12:12 PM In all fairness he has the right to the cell phone info ... this is a murder trial so withholding any request would open up a reversal or new trial in the appellate courts just making it drag on and on. The smart thing to do is just give them the damn phone. I can't understand this f up stand your ground law. You have a duty to avoid such situations. I have a Martial arts master rank. I can't clobber someone for insulting me..even when I would like to :-) I would go to jail right now ..as I am bound to avoid such situations as Bobart said. He was carrying a firearm even more restrictive ... he was legally bound to avoid the situation as the police ordered him to stand down .. second degree murder is the right charge I think but I am no lawyer |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Zimmerman defense-' Evidence withheld' From: Greg F. Date: 13 Jun 13 - 11:14 AM Calm down, Beardy - you're spraying spittle again. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Zimmerman defense-' Evidence withheld' From: Don(Wyziwyg)T Date: 13 Jun 13 - 09:40 AM ""Well, the UK does not have quite the same categories of unlawful killing as the USA so I'd have to do quite a bit of digging to form a view on that."" Turning it on its head, would Zimmerman pass the test of "reasonable force" in an English court Richard? Not that this would have any bearing on US proceedings, but it is an indicator of the strength of any defence of using a weapon against an unarmed man. Don T. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Zimmerman defense-' Evidence withheld' From: beardedbruce Date: 13 Jun 13 - 09:10 AM http://gma.yahoo.com/blogs/abc-blogs/did-potential-zimmerman-juror-lie-court-034710693.html Bobert, I gave you a scenario where the TEXTS would be significant, and you keep going on about the PHOTOS. BITH were withheld- Are you trying to get around the fact that I answered your question??? Or are you just being an asshole on general principles, as your racist friend Greggie is? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Zimmerman defense-' Evidence withheld' From: catspaw49 Date: 12 Jun 13 - 10:32 AM Fair enough Richard......Thanks Spaw |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Zimmerman defense-' Evidence withheld' From: Richard Bridge Date: 12 Jun 13 - 10:22 AM Well, the UK does not have quite the same categories of unlawful killing as the USA so I'd have to do quite a bit of digging to form a view on that. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Zimmerman defense-' Evidence withheld' From: catspaw49 Date: 12 Jun 13 - 10:07 AM RICHARD BRIDGE---Assume the following: Zimmerman disregards the police request and follows Martin. At one point they confront each other. Some fighting starts and Martin gets the upper hand. Zimmerman takes out his gun and kills Martin. *Would murder be an overreach? *No one has reported hearing cries to "STOP" but only to help.If this results in a he said/she said type of thing, how would this play out? *I'm just curious as I still see a problem with Z following when told not to do so. You and I often disagree but I have always respected your knowledge as a lawyer. With what "seems" to be known at this point, where do you see this trial going? Thanks Spaw |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Zimmerman defense-' Evidence withheld' From: GUEST Date: 11 Jun 13 - 07:46 PM And when the judge agrees, so it will be, Bobert. |
