Meek, Upstanding Citizen George Zimmerman Arrested Again

Well, you don’t need to take me seriously, of course. But, if people prefer to take the resident golf pro seriously regarding legal issues… well, that’s fine by me… :laughing:

Why, though, are you so obtuse?

TM was armed. A gun is not the only weapon people can use in attack or defense. Surely you understand this obvious fact?

Also, why are you so obtuse in thinking that anyone is defending GZ. I am and have from the start defended the Constitution and the criminal justice system… you know, the idea that defendants, however low and disgusting we may regard them, are presumed innocent until the State proves their alleged guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

Really, perhaps when you would grow up just a bit, your self-righteous anger will subside, just a bit, just enough to see past your over-blown sense of self-import. :laughing:

I’ll address you and your posts as I please. :stuck_out_tongue:

Well, you don’t need to take me seriously, of course. But, if people prefer to take the resident golf pro seriously regarding legal issues… well, that’s fine by me… :laughing:

Why, though, are you so obtuse?

TM was armed. A gun is not the only weapon people can use in attack or defense. Surely you understand this obvious fact?

Also, why are you so obtuse in thinking that anyone is defending GZ. I am and have from the start defended the Constitution and the criminal justice system… you know, the idea that defendants, however low and disgusting we may regard them, are presumed innocent until the State proves their alleged guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

Really, perhaps when you would grow up just a bit, your self-righteous anger will subside, just a bit, just enough to see past your over-blown sense of self-import. :laughing:

I’ll address you and your posts as I please. :p[/quote]

Time for some finger calisthenics old pal, looks like a long day and night of typing ahead!

Imagine if you were billing hours for all the tripe you wrote in the last GZ thread? You could have been typing this batch of nonsense from your newly purchased villa on the big island.

I look forward with glee to see how you will spin it this time, links, bold type and condescension ahead (but for truth and reality veer left)!

:roflmao: :roflmao: :roflmao: :roflmao: :roflmao: :roflmao: :roflmao: :roflmao: :roflmao: :roflmao: :roflmao: :roflmao:

Sugar magnolia, blossoms blooming, heads all empty and I don’t care…

Sometimes when the cuckoos crying, when the moon is half way down,
Sometimes when the night is dying, I take me out and I wander around, I wander
Round…

Not likely. The police report indicates that when they entered the house, GZ was sitting there, unarmed.

I haven’t spun anything. I’ve merely reminded yinz that there are no facts yet that support the allegation that GZ pointed a gun at the woman.

Eh? What spin? I [color=#FF0000]correctly[/color] predicted that GZ would be acquitted in the trial regarding the killing of TM.

You, however, were on the wrong side of that argument… :popcorn:

Yeah, as if TM was an expert in Skittle-Fu… :unamused:

The evidence shows that TM bragged about knowing how to get the advantage over an opponent in a fight by sucker punching the opponent in the nose. GZ’s MMA trainer testified that GZ was pathetically inept at fighting to the extent that he would not even allow GZ to spar. TM was involved in fighting and was much more than GZ a fighting expert.

Two fists and a slab of hard concrete are weapons.

How is this so difficult for you to understand? :ponder:

Again I ask, is it difficult to get people to take you seriously? You must have to walk around with your diploma in your wallet. TM is not Floyd Mayweather and his hands are not deadly weapons. :loco:

Again I ask, is it difficult to get people to take you seriously? You must have to walk around with your diploma in your wallet. TM is not Floyd Mayweather and his hands are not deadly weapons. :loco:[/quote]

You must not have heard of the game “kids” today are playing called knockout. Several people have been killed, and quite a few of the “kids” are facing murder charges.

Again I ask, is it difficult to get people to take you seriously? You must have to walk around with your diploma in your wallet. TM is not Floyd Mayweather and his hands are not deadly weapons. :loco:[/quote]

You must not have heard of the game “kids” today are playing called knockout. Several people have been killed, and quite a few of the “kids” are facing murder charges.

[/quote]

Yeah, but, c’mon, Mick! Those dudes that got knocked out were pussies. They weren’t able to defend themselves like manly MMA fighters. They deserved to be knocked out.

I look forward to the day that BrentGolf finally grows up and leaves adolescent notions of machismo behind… :laughing:

Irrelevant. The fact that people have died from punches and are charged with related crimes does not mean that fists of random people are considered weapons in the eyes of the law. I could beat the shit out of both GZ and TM, but I guarantee you I wouldn’t be considered “armed” if I punched some dude in the nose. Also, no court room on the planet aside from in Tigermans day dreams would be tempted to suggest that since a 17 year old kid can hypothetically join the military and hypothetically kill people in a skirmish with a gun that he is somehow considered ARMED when walking home from 7-11 in Florida. :loco:

This is way past crazy. Tigerman, congrats my man, you have certainly outdone yourself :notworthy:

And yet, I correctly predicted GZ’s acquittal while you erroneously posted ignorance repeatedly. :sunglasses:

:discodance:

You just love to demonstrate your ignorance, don’t you? :laughing:

The fact that people are killed by single punches is in directly on point and is a large part of the reason that GZ was acquitted and his killing of TM was deemed justified as self-defense.

The law is unclear as to whether hands are deemed to be deadly weapons. But, I’m not talking about deadly weapons. Some states, such as Ohio, define in statute that deadly weapons are “any instrument, device, or [color=#FF0000]thing[/color] capable of inflicting death, and designed or specifically adapted for use as a weapon, or possessed, carried, or [color=#FF0000]used as a weapon[/color].” That may or may not rule out hands as a deadly weapon, but, not necessarily as simply a weapon. And, we already know that in fact, hands can be deadly weapons, whether or not expressly defined as such by statute. In the past, French law specifically stated that hands are deadly weapons. Anyway, I think it clear that a hand is a [color=#FF0000]thing[/color] and that a hand can be used as a weapon. To argue otherwise is to be dishonest and disingenuous.

Ohio appellate courts, however, have issued contradictory rulings on the issue. Back in 1996, a court stated that “while human fists may not be deadly weapons per se,” it is reasonable to consider them as such in certain a specific beating cases. One ruling in 1999 indicated that “there is no question” that fists can be deadly weapons. Yet, a judgment in 2000 affirmed a lower court’s jury instruction that fists cannot be considered deadly weapons.

In the [color=#FF0000]eyes of the law[/color], [color=#FF0000]intent[/color] is what is important. If you use your hands while intending to harm or kill another, you will be charged a crime, and your victim, if he/she kills you in self defense, will be permitted to raise the same as a defense (as we saw clearly in the GZ case). If you use your hands and in fact do cause serious harm, the courts will often decide that your crime is more serious than a simple battery and in some jurisdictions, courts will consider the assailant’s skill in using his fists in a battery (although TM would not likely have met that test).

Also, an assailant who used a slab of concrete to harm his victim is deemed to have used a weapon. It takes a certain obstinancy to refuse to accept that banging a victim’s head against hard concrete is no different from instead hitting the victim with the concrete.

If TM was banging GZ’s head off a pillow, that fact would have been argued by the prosecution.

That’s because you are one hard macho motherfucking golf pro! :laughing:

Well, I’ve just showed above that you are wrong on that count.

See the above. In any event, whether a court would deem the 17 yo kid armed or not is irrelevant, as is proved in many cases tried each year, including the GZ case for killing TM.

When former WBA heavyweight champ Michael Dokes was charged with beating his wife in 1998, his attorney was careful to point out that Dokes did not used closed fists when beating her. His attorney was concerned with the possibility that his fists might be considered deadly weapons.

You’re grasping at straws trying to retain some sense of dignity after being so completely wrong in the original thread re the case. But, it is highly amusing to see you struggle. :laughing:

I don’t understand how anyone from a nation with a tradition of liberal and constitutional democracy could believe that a defendant, even if he/she had a history of violence, should be denied his/her constitutionally guaranteed rights to a fair trial where the State is required to prove the defendant’s guilt against some certain standard of reasonableness.

I get that people do not care for GZ. I get that people are anti-gun.

But, I don’t understand how you some of you folks can be so much against individual rights as guaranteed by the Constitution that you seem willing to deprive GZ of his rights and to grant the State powers in excess of what it legally possesses??? :eh:

I don’t think it’s possible to predict what a jury is going to do unless you do it after the fact because all you have to do is raise reasonable doubts in the minds of jurors and who really knows what’s going on in the minds of six or twelve strangers? A year earlier than George Zimmerman’s trial and a few miles up the road in Orlando Casey Anthony was acquitted of murdering her two year old daughter, Caylee, because the jury in that case too had reasonable doubts, despite the fact that Casey Anthony’s own parents deemed her defense, that they were responsible, baseless. The judge himself in that case said he was shocked at the not guilty verdict when he first read it.

[quote]The judge who presided over the Casey Anthony murder trial said on the “Today” show Monday morning that he was shocked by the verdict.

Nearly two years after the trial, in which Anthony was found not guilty of murder in the death of her daughter, Caylee, Perry opened up about the case. Perry said he had to read the “not guilty” verdict form twice to make sure he was reading it correctly.

Perry said he thought there was enough evidence to find Anthony guilty of first-degree murder, but he credited the defense for presenting a case creating reasonable doubt.[/quote]

[quote]Among the many differences between the opposing legal teams in the Casey Anthony murder trial, perhaps the key distinction is this: Where the prosecution sought to provide answers, the defense aimed to raise questions.

In his final opportunity to speak to the 12 jurors, who sat stone-faced, attentive and unreadable throughout the trial’s intense six weeks, defense lawyer Jose Baez told them that the biggest question of all, how Casey’s 2-year-old daughter Caylee died, remained unanswered.

“It can never be proven,” he said.

In the end, the jury agreed. But why?

Several Key Factors
Legal experts say the stunning not-guilty verdict is a result of several key factors, beginning with the lack of hard evidence tying Casey, 25, to the crime.

Prosecutors said Casey applied duct tape to Caylee’s nose and mouth to kill her; Baez said the little girl drowned in the Anthony family swimming pool, an accident that was then covered up by Casey’s father George. (After the verdict, George and Cindy Anthony deemed her defense “baseless.”)

“The prosecution had a theory that Caylee was suffocated,” says longtime Orlando criminal defense attorney Michael Dicembre. “The reality is, it was a theory. Nobody could say how Caylee died, when she died. We don’t know.”

Adds local defense attorney Richard Hornsby: [color=blue]“The bottom line is that the jurors did not completely believe the prosecution’s theory and they chose to acquit. They were able to raise reasonable doubt in the jurors’ minds.” [/color]

What’s more, Baez’s repeated insistence that Caylee’s death was “an accident that snowballed out of control” seemed to ring true with jurors, who were presented with extensive testimony regarding the Anthony family’s dysfunctional dynamic.

“It was such a horrific accident, they didn’t know how to deal with it,” alternate juror Russell Huekler told HLN. “The family appeared to be very dysfunctional and instead of admitting … there was an accident, they chose to hide it for whatever reason.”

Huekler also said he found the evidence regarding the smell in Casey’s Pontiac Sunfire unconvincing, despite testimony from multiple witnesses – including Casey’s mother Cindy – that the car reeked of death.

“You have to remember there were a number of law enforcement officers that responded to July 15 and none of them smelled the odor,” Huekler told HLN. “It was hard for me to accept that there had been a body in the car.”

[color=blue]From the start, the prosecution seemed to possess a strong, if circumstantial, hand: The smell of a dead body in Casey’s trunk. A hair from Caylee, which forensic evidence tied to a decomposing body. Incriminating computer searches for “chloroform” and “neck breaking.” Thirty days of the defendant’s partying and lying in the wake of her daughter’s disappearance.[/color]

And the underdog defense team? They built their case around their client’s lies. Her “imaginary friends.” Accusations, unproven, of sexual abuse at the hands of her father George.

But with the burden of proof resting squarely on the prosecution, Baez hammered that point that his client’s extensive lies didn’t prove her guilt.

“Just because she lied doesn’t necessarily mean she committed the murder,” says Dicembre. “I really think the jury in this case tried to remove the emotion, as Baez asked them to. They made a decision simply based on the evidence presented, not emotion.”

Still, Baez managed to pull off a rare feat: He sharply changed direction after his explosive opening arguments, backing off of the sexual abuse claims without losing the jury.

“He really seemed to paint himself into a corner with that opening statement,” says Dicembre. “The fact that he was able to get a not guilty … he shot a lot of traditional thought right out of the water.”

[color=blue]One thing that legal experts on both sides agree upon: Juries are invariably unpredictable.[/color]

Not permitted to discuss the trial even among themselves until deliberation, the sequestered Anthony jury was completely cut off from the constant chatter about the trial, CNN’s Nancy Grace’s “tot mom” rage and the millions of trial watchers who thought Casey was guilty.

[color=blue]“When you’ve been doing this for so long, you know that you never know what a jury will do,” says Orlando defense attorney Bill Umansky, who closely followed the case.[/color]

“The bottom line is, the prosecution did a good job, but circumstantial cases are very difficult to prove,” adds Umansky. “What happened to Caylee? We may never know.”

Despite public outcry over the verdict, “This is the jury system,” says Hornsby. “The whole point is that a jury of one’s peers makes the decision, not the government. Casey Anthony had her trial, and the jury made its decision.”[/quote]

Of course its possible to predict what a jury will decide, and its possible to opine as to what a jury should decide, based on the facts of the case and the applicable law.

And of course some juries arrive at very difficult to understand decisions.

Nonetheless, most juries decide appropriately and while I have my criticisms of the jury system, I prefer it to other systems where the State, represented by the Prosecutor and (possibly) the Judge, decide on a defendant’s guilt or innocence. I would think that you of all people would understand this?

I went to high school (and law school) with and was a friend of the Prosecutor in the Casey Anthony case. Maybe I’ll ask Linda what she thought… of course, I think her opinion is probably easy to find online:

She refuses to comment on the verdict, except to say, “I’ve learned never to be surprised by anything a jury does.”

If by ‘predict’ you mean guess then I would have to agree. If you have a chance to ask your prosecutor friend’s opinion of things I’d be interested to hear her opinion of George Zimmerman’s guilt or innocence, given her proxmity to events and her insider’s knowledge of things.

Right on schedule, there’s Tigerman with a novel filled with 14 year old school girl insults, random cut and paste quotes from other people much smarter than him, colored and bold text, and 100% lack of original thought, what a surprise. :unamused: Your actions are comically predictable and your opinions on the law are sometimes laughably off base.

Let me spell it out for you Mr. lawyer man. Just because in some specific cases peoples fists have been deemed deadly weapons because of the circumstances of that case and of that particular trial, DOES NOT mean that every 17 year old kid walking home with a pack of skittles is now “armed.” You certainly don’t have to pass the bar exam to know that.

Keeping with character, you absolutely refuse to just admit that you said something random and stupid and just laugh it off. All you had to say was, yup that was dumb and I take it back. Instead you try to go on the offense with ridiculous insults and flood the thread with completely unrelated off topic cut and paste jobs. I really would prefer to never speak to you again, but damn if you don’t make it so easy to double over laughing.

And you are quite effectively demonstrating my point that there are over a million lawyers in the US, several of whom we should take what they say with a grain of salt. The reason you follow me around like a little puppy dog in every thread is because I have pointed this out. So by all means continue trying to hump my leg, I’m dying to see what you come up with next.

:roflmao: Classic !

Seems in the world of the right-wing mind, there’s no such thing as an unarmed person.

Hey golf pro… if you could read, you’d have seen that I already said the same in my post above here:

But, you don’t really understand what you read. Do you? :laughing:

Here is Jeralyn Merritt, a criminal defense attorney who has served as Secretary, Treasurer and member of the Board of Directors of the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers as well as on the ABA Criminal Justice Section Council and the Board of Governors of the American Board of Criminal Lawyers, and has testified before both Congress and the United States Sentencing Commission on drug sentencing laws, and was a Lecturer in Law at the Denver University College of Law teaching “Wrongful Convictions” and “Criminal Defense” and is the creator of CrimeLynx, an internet resource for legal professionals:

I never stated that TM’s fists were deadly weapons. I stated merely that it is foolish to claim that he was unarmed.

But, of course, you, famous golf pro in Taiwan and bad-ass MMA fighter, know the law better than any of us who have studied and practiced law.

Keep it coming, sonny boy! :laughing:

Oh I definitely don’t know the law to any extent that people should hang on my words on legal issues and neither me nor anybody else on this forum has ever claimed otherwise. However the most comical part about this that you fail to be grasping is, you don’t either as demonstrated time and again. :discodance: If a person did have a legal question they cared about getting a correct answer on, I would suggest they consult some of the real lawyers that you are so proficient in cutting and pasting from. Neither you nor I could be of any service to them…

Sonny boy? Really? So basically I’m talking to a rickety old southern conservative with little to no original thoughts about the law. Duly noted :thumbsup:

What’s the over / under on the percentage of real lawyers who would double over laughing at a comment like that? 99% or so?