Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 39

Thread: Why Florida prosecutor Angela Corey NEEDS TO BE DISBARRED:

  1. #1
    Campaign Veteran since9's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Colorado Springs, Colorado, USA
    Posts
    6,787

    Why Florida prosecutor Angela Corey NEEDS TO BE DISBARRED:

    1. Florida State Law ALLOWS people to defend themselves with deadly force.

    2. Angela Corey IGNORES the law by charging Zimmerman after the prosecutor who had jurisdiction refused to file any charges because, according to the evidence, Zimmerman had broken no laws. If "convicted," Zimmerman could face decades in prison.

    3. Angela Corey IGNORES the law by charging Marissa Alexander for defending herself against her violently abusive husband, and now Marissa faces 20 years in prison.

    What's Angela Corey's problem? For one, as an elected official, she's grandstanding, using this as a campaign platform. For another, she has a GROSS anti-gun history. As our Constitution confirms our right to keep and bear arms, her history is grossly anti-Constitutional.

    Oh, and get this!!! The New Black Panther Party named Corey, along with Eric Holder, as the best public figures in office today, since neither has charged anyone for the bounty offered by the NBPP on Zimmermann's head, a clear violation of criminal law as well as Zimmermann's civil rights. This decision was entirely politically motivated. Praising Angela Corey makes a mockery or our justice system.

    As a veteran, I did NOT risk life and limb serving our nation to protect and defend our Constitution against all enemies foreign and domestic to sit idly by while a domestic enemy like Angela Corey DESTROYS our Constitution with her illegal and un-Constitutional hatred for our Second Amendment Rights.

    She claims it's "all about the victims" while refusing to acknowledge Marissa's husband is NOT a victim. Martin was NOT a victim. Both of these CRIMINALS engaged in violent assault against the real victims: Marissa Alexander and Zimmerman.

    Angela Corey calls criminals "victims" while punishing the real victims by means which should have been reserved for the criminals! Talk about "calling good evil, and evil good" as foretold in the Bible. This woman is the epitome of evil in our justice system today.

    Angela Corey is a DISGRACE to the rights and freedoms upon which our country was founded, and should be removed from office FOR CAUSE without delay.

    http://news.yahoo.com/why-couldnt-ma...162546331.html
    The First protects the Second, and the Second protects the First. Together, they protect the rest of our Bill of Rights and our United States Constitution, and help We the People protect ourselves in the spirit of our Declaration of Independence.

  2. #2
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    Jacksonville, FL
    Posts
    3
    Quote Originally Posted by since9 View Post
    As a veteran, I did NOT risk life and limb serving our nation to protect and defend our Constitution against all enemies foreign and domestic to sit idly by while a domestic enemy like Angela Corey DESTROYS our Constitution with her illegal and un-Constitutional hatred for our Second Amendment Rights.
    I'm right next to you on this.
    What's worse is having to live in the damn city she's actually a prosecutor for.
    Tired of the ignorant masses ignoring facts and baiting the main stream media into harassing you because you did your job and followed the facts? Just temporarily step down and send your problems to sunny Jacksonville. We'll gladly cave to the media and public opinion, all while ignoring state law, AND eye witness accounts. Jacksonville's here to take the heat off of you.

  3. #3
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Washington
    Posts
    2,546
    Quote Originally Posted by since9 View Post
    1. Florida State Law ALLOWS people to defend themselves with deadly force.
    Only if the defense was not a result of them putting themselves into a position where it's required, which is what is in question in this case.

    2. Angela Corey IGNORES the law by charging Zimmerman after the prosecutor who had jurisdiction refused to file any charges because, according to the evidence, Zimmerman had broken no laws. If "convicted," Zimmerman could face decades in prison.
    According to the police, he should have been charged. Know who wasn't doing their job? The original DA who didn't press charges.

    3. Angela Corey IGNORES the law by charging Marissa Alexander for defending herself against her violently abusive husband, and now Marissa faces 20 years in prison.
    Marissa Alexander, you mean the person who fired "warning shots" and lied about the situation?


    She claims it's "all about the victims" while refusing to acknowledge Marissa's husband is NOT a victim. Martin was NOT a victim. Both of these CRIMINALS engaged in violent assault against the real victims: Marissa Alexander and Zimmerman.
    Isn't that what a trial is meant to establish? Or do you just presume and assume that presumption should be good enough for everyone?
    "If we were to ever consider citizenship as the least bit matter of merit instead of birthright, imagine who should be selected as deserved representation of our democracy: someone who would risk their daily livelihood to cast an individually statistically insignificant vote, or those who wrap themselves in the flag against slightest slights." - agenthex

  4. #4
    Regular Member Yaki's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    Salinas, California
    Posts
    95
    Quote Originally Posted by Tawnos View Post
    Only if the defense was not a result of them putting themselves into a position where it's required, which is what is in question in this case.


    According to the police, he should have been charged. Know who wasn't doing their job? The original DA who didn't press charges.


    Marissa Alexander, you mean the person who fired "warning shots" and lied about the situation?



    Isn't that what a trial is meant to establish? Or do you just presume and assume that presumption should be good enough for everyone?
    What he said.

  5. #5
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    Fallon, NV
    Posts
    577
    If Zimmerman should have been charged at the scene, what would he be charged with? I hear mostly and witnesses confirm, that Zimmerman was attacked.

    Now, unless Zimmerman put his hands on Martin, then no attack was warranted. Do you charge Zimmerman for following the guy? No law against that. He's a homeowner in a private community and had every right to follow the guy. He had a right to ask the guy what he was doing.

    You are not legally bound to follow the instructions of a police dispatcher. So Zimmerman put himself in a bad situation. But you can't charge him with being in a bad place at a bad time.

    I've seen a lot of arguments that could have gone badly. I'm talking about face to face screaming with spittle flying. But... as nobody touches anybody, no laws have been broken.

    Zimmerman could have called Martin every racist name in the book, could have followed him up to his daddy's doorstep, none of this is deserving of a physical attack. Now... prove to me that Zimmerman attacked Martin first, then you have a case as stand your ground is not a defense if you initiate the attack.

    Read/learn the laws, follow and enforce them as written. That's all I ask. I think the basis of this case isn't what Zimmerman did before the attack/shooting, but rather who attacked who.
    Last edited by FallonJeeper; 05-04-2012 at 09:00 PM.
    Hoka hey

  6. #6
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Washington
    Posts
    2,546
    Quote Originally Posted by FallonJeeper View Post
    I've seen a lot of arguments that could have gone badly. I'm talking about face to face screaming with spittle flying. But... as nobody touches anybody, no laws have been broken.
    Can you define "assault" for me, please?
    "If we were to ever consider citizenship as the least bit matter of merit instead of birthright, imagine who should be selected as deserved representation of our democracy: someone who would risk their daily livelihood to cast an individually statistically insignificant vote, or those who wrap themselves in the flag against slightest slights." - agenthex

  7. #7
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    1,605
    Florida Law 776.032 Works that if a Person can Claim The Defense Offered by Florida Code 776.012, then, They are IMMUNE from 'Criminal Prosecution'.

    Florida Code 776.032 Defines 'Criminal Prosecution' as: Arresting, Detaining in Custody, and Charging or Prosecuting The Defendant.

    Seems to Me that The Statutes are Written Clearly enough...[...]

  8. #8
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    Fallon, NV
    Posts
    577
    Quote Originally Posted by Tawnos View Post
    Can you define "assault" for me, please?
    In Florida -
    784.011 Assault.
    (1) An "assault" is an intentional, unlawful threat by word or act to do violence to the person of another, coupled with an apparent ability to do so, and doing some act which creates a well-founded fear in such other person that such violence is imminent.

    I don't believe Zimmerman committed assault. There has to be an unlawful threat by word or act to do violence AND doing some act that violence is imminent. You have to meet all these elements, not just part or some.

    Having an argument does not meet this standard. Believe it or not, you can have a serious argument with somebody without making threats.

    Asking what are you doing here and following somebody is certainly no way near assault.

    As I said before, and I'll rephrase, if they can prove that Zimmerman attacked (assault/battery) first then they'll have a case. Simply following somebody and asking what they are doing there is not assault, otherwise police and security officers would be guilty everyday.
    Last edited by FallonJeeper; 05-05-2012 at 03:31 PM.
    Hoka hey

  9. #9
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Washington
    Posts
    2,546
    Quote Originally Posted by FallonJeeper View Post
    In Florida -
    784.011 Assault.
    (1) An "assault" is an intentional, unlawful threat by word or act to do violence to the person of another, coupled with an apparent ability to do so, and doing some act which creates a well-founded fear in such other person that such violence is imminent.

    I don't believe Zimmerman committed assault. There has to be an unlawful threat by word or act to do violence AND doing some act that violence is imminent. You have to meet all these elements, not just part or some.

    Having an argument does not meet this standard. Believe it or not, you can have a serious argument with somebody without making threats.

    Asking what are you doing here and following somebody is certainly no way near assault.

    As I said before, and I'll rephrase, if they can prove that Zimmerman attacked (assault/battery) first then they'll have a case. Simply following somebody and asking what they are doing there is not assault, otherwise police and security officers would be guilty everyday.
    The point of a trial is to prove or disprove things like that. It shouldn't be tried in the court of public opinion. The fact it is in question/questionable circumstances are why charges should go through the court.

    However, as you can see, your earlier assertion that "as nobody touches anybody, no laws have been broken" is clearly false.
    "If we were to ever consider citizenship as the least bit matter of merit instead of birthright, imagine who should be selected as deserved representation of our democracy: someone who would risk their daily livelihood to cast an individually statistically insignificant vote, or those who wrap themselves in the flag against slightest slights." - agenthex

  10. #10
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Fallon, Nevada, USA
    Posts
    5,580
    Quote Originally Posted by FallonJeeper View Post
    Zimmerman could have called Martin every racist name in the book, could have followed him up to his daddy's doorstep, none of this is deserving of a physical attack. Now... prove to me that Zimmerman attacked Martin first, then you have a case as stand your ground is not a defense if you initiate the attack.

    Read/learn the laws, follow and enforce them as written. That's all I ask. I think the basis of this case isn't what Zimmerman did before the attack/shooting, but rather who attacked who.
    Florida SYG law does permit an initial aggressor to use deadly force if warranted. "Who started it" doesn't invalidate self-defense. "Who presents a 'fear of great bodily harm or death'" is the defining factor.
    "Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." Benjamin Franklin

  11. #11
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Fallon, Nevada, USA
    Posts
    5,580
    Quote Originally Posted by Tawnos View Post
    The point of a trial is to prove or disprove things like that. It shouldn't be tried in the court of public opinion. The fact it is in question/questionable circumstances are why charges should go through the court.

    However, as you can see, your earlier assertion that "as nobody touches anybody, no laws have been broken" is clearly false.
    This case has already been tried in the court of public opinion. And, unless evidence actually exists that casts doubt upon the sd claim, it doesn't even NEED to get into a courtroom.


    The 'point of a trial' should only be to attempt to convict someone of a crime based upon evidence of a crime, not to acquit of a possible crime without evidence of one.......
    Last edited by wrightme; 05-05-2012 at 04:59 PM.
    "Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." Benjamin Franklin

  12. #12
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    SW Idaho
    Posts
    1,552

    Exclamation

    Quote Originally Posted by wrightme View Post
    Florida SYG law does permit an initial aggressor to use deadly force if warranted. "Who started it" doesn't invalidate self-defense. "Who presents a 'fear of great bodily harm or death'" is the defining factor.
    Actually, who "withdraws from physical contact with the assailant and indicates clearly to the assailant that he or she desires to withdraw and terminate the use of force, but the assailant continues or resumes the use of force" is the defining factor.

    776.041 Use of force by aggressor.The justification described in the preceding sections of this chapter is not available to a person who:(1) Is attempting to commit, committing, or escaping after the commission of, a forcible felony; or
    (2) Initially provokes the use of force against himself or herself, unless:(a) Such force is so great that the person reasonably believes that he or she is in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm and that he or she has exhausted every reasonable means to escape such danger other than the use of force which is likely to cause death or great bodily harm to the assailant; or
    (b) In good faith, the person withdraws from physical contact with the assailant and indicates clearly to the assailant that he or she desires to withdraw and terminate the use of force, but the assailant continues or resumes the use of force.


    History.s. 13, ch. 74-383; s. 1190, ch. 97-102.

    Total ignorance: an Obama supporter's stock in trade
    Quote Originally Posted by Beretta92FSLady View Post
    All the talk about Overthrowing Big Government, Revolution, etc., it's just another one of those nostalgic ideas that individuals have idealized.
    O RLY?
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...and_rebellions
    Quote Originally Posted by Beretta92FSLady View Post
    Books are overrated; and so is history.

  13. #13
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Washington
    Posts
    2,546
    Quote Originally Posted by wrightme View Post
    This case has already been tried in the court of public opinion. And, unless evidence actually exists that casts doubt upon the sd claim, it doesn't even NEED to get into a courtroom.
    There is evidence that casts doubt on the claim. Essentially, the fact that Zimmerman ever confronted or followed Martin is evidence that he may have "initially provoked the use of force." What is in question, then, is whether Martin's attack of Zimmerman was based on Martin acting in self-defense due to the actions of Zimmerman, or if Zimmerman had actually withdrawn from any potential view of being an aggressor and was subsequently attacked by Martin. Alternatively, if the prosecution does show that Zimmerman's actions provoked the use of force and Zimmerman's lawyers attempt to argue the (a) exemption to the exemption, the case will be argued on whether Zimmerman exercised "every reasonable means to escape."

    Basically, regardless of if the case has a lot of people with differing opinions on both sides, there are still many out there like myself, who would be fine on a jury because we have no idea which way the case should be decided. Claiming that it "doesn't even NEED to get into a courtroom" ignores that this is not a cut-and-dry case of self-defense. There are a lot of factors at play here beyond public opinion, among them the actions undertaken by Zimmerman and the order and level of response by Martin leading to the incident. "Stand your ground" doesn't mean "avoid the courtroom altogether" despite what many here have advocated.

    The 'point of a trial' should only be to attempt to convict someone of a crime based upon evidence of a crime, not to acquit of a possible crime without evidence of one.......
    The point of a trial is for the prosecution to try to convict the defendant, and the defendant to try and show their lack of guilt. Facts are determined in the trial, not by mere assertion of interested third parties before the trial.
    "If we were to ever consider citizenship as the least bit matter of merit instead of birthright, imagine who should be selected as deserved representation of our democracy: someone who would risk their daily livelihood to cast an individually statistically insignificant vote, or those who wrap themselves in the flag against slightest slights." - agenthex

  14. #14
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Fallon, Nevada, USA
    Posts
    5,580
    Quote Originally Posted by Tawnos View Post
    There is evidence that casts doubt on the claim. Essentially, the fact that Zimmerman ever confronted or followed Martin is evidence that he may have "initially provoked the use of force." What is in question, then, is whether Martin's attack of Zimmerman was based on Martin acting in self-defense due to the actions of Zimmerman, or if Zimmerman had actually withdrawn from any potential view of being an aggressor and was subsequently attacked by Martin. Alternatively, if the prosecution does show that Zimmerman's actions provoked the use of force and Zimmerman's lawyers attempt to argue the (a) exemption to the exemption, the case will be argued on whether Zimmerman exercised "every reasonable means to escape."

    Basically, regardless of if the case has a lot of people with differing opinions on both sides, there are still many out there like myself, who would be fine on a jury because we have no idea which way the case should be decided. Claiming that it "doesn't even NEED to get into a courtroom" ignores that this is not a cut-and-dry case of self-defense. There are a lot of factors at play here beyond public opinion, among them the actions undertaken by Zimmerman and the order and level of response by Martin leading to the incident. "Stand your ground" doesn't mean "avoid the courtroom altogether" despite what many here have advocated.
    The point of a trial is for the prosecution to try to convict the defendant, and the defendant to try and show their lack of guilt. Facts are determined in the trial, not by mere assertion of interested third parties before the trial.
    I see no evidence that would cast doubt upon Zimmerman's claim. It isn't whether it is 'cut and dried' or not, it is whether there is sufficient evidence to present it to a trial. The correct place for that decision in FL would be in a grand jury, not in a court trial; unless there is clear evidence to cast doubt upon Z's claim. And, from what I have seen of the actual evidence made public, there isn't any.
    "Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." Benjamin Franklin

  15. #15
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Washington
    Posts
    2,546
    Quote Originally Posted by wrightme View Post
    I see no evidence that would cast doubt upon Zimmerman's claim. It isn't whether it is 'cut and dried' or not, it is whether there is sufficient evidence to present it to a trial. The correct place for that decision in FL would be in a grand jury, not in a court trial; unless there is clear evidence to cast doubt upon Z's claim. And, from what I have seen of the actual evidence made public, there isn't any.
    The responding cops disagree with you.
    "If we were to ever consider citizenship as the least bit matter of merit instead of birthright, imagine who should be selected as deserved representation of our democracy: someone who would risk their daily livelihood to cast an individually statistically insignificant vote, or those who wrap themselves in the flag against slightest slights." - agenthex

  16. #16
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Fallon, Nevada, USA
    Posts
    5,580
    Quote Originally Posted by Tawnos View Post
    Well, no, not exactly. I didn't see any comments in that article that indicate that the police found evidence to cast doubt upon the claim of SD. Did you?

    In fact, the title and heading of that article aren't even supported by the content of the article itself. Did YOU read the article, or just the headline because it supports your opinion?
    Last edited by wrightme; 05-05-2012 at 09:29 PM.
    "Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." Benjamin Franklin

  17. #17
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Washington
    Posts
    2,546
    Quote Originally Posted by wrightme View Post
    Well, no, not exactly. I didn't see any comments in that article that indicate that the police found evidence to cast doubt upon the claim of SD. Did you?

    In fact, the title and heading of that article aren't even supported by the content of the article itself. Did YOU read the article, or just the headline because it supports your opinion?
    "the police went to the state attorney with a capias request, meaning: Were through with our investigation and here it is for you.

    A capias is a request for charges to be filed."


    I'm assuming the cops are doing their jobs. Evidence may come out to exonerate Zimmerman, but from what has been released thus far, it's a question I have not had answered. When the evidence is released (should be any day now), we'll know more. Right now, though, any argument I can make _for_ this going to court is based entirely upon the comments of the cops and prosecutors' decisions. Any argument you can make against is based on, what, exactly?
    "If we were to ever consider citizenship as the least bit matter of merit instead of birthright, imagine who should be selected as deserved representation of our democracy: someone who would risk their daily livelihood to cast an individually statistically insignificant vote, or those who wrap themselves in the flag against slightest slights." - agenthex

  18. #18
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Fallon, Nevada, USA
    Posts
    5,580
    Quote Originally Posted by Tawnos View Post
    I'm assuming the cops are doing their jobs. Evidence may come out to exonerate Zimmerman, but from what has been released thus far, it's a question I have not had answered. When the evidence is released (should be any day now), we'll know more. Right now, though, any argument I can make _for_ this going to court is based entirely upon the comments of the cops and prosecutors' decisions. Any argument you can make against is based on, what, exactly?
    There doesn't need to be evidence to exonerate Zimmerman under FL statute. There just needs to NOT be evidence to refute or cast doubt upon the claim of self-defense.
    If you are going to 'assume the cops are doing their jobs,' and 'based entirely upon the comments of the cops and prosecutors' decisions,' are you going to actually present these alleged statements, or only the headline of an article devoid of such information? According to the early reports, only the lead investigator reportedly wanted charges against Zimmerman, based upon being 'unconvinced' of Zimmerman's tale. That isn't any where near conclusive, and sure doesn't fit any 'refutation,' or 'cast doubt' level of evidence. It seems more akin to 'hunch' than 'evidence.'
    "Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." Benjamin Franklin

  19. #19
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Washington
    Posts
    2,546
    Quote Originally Posted by wrightme View Post
    There doesn't need to be evidence to exonerate Zimmerman under FL statute. There just needs to NOT be evidence to refute or cast doubt upon the claim of self-defense.
    If you are going to 'assume the cops are doing their jobs,' and 'based entirely upon the comments of the cops and prosecutors' decisions,' are you going to actually present these alleged statements, or only the headline of an article devoid of such information? According to the early reports, only the lead investigator reportedly wanted charges against Zimmerman, based upon being 'unconvinced' of Zimmerman's tale. That isn't any where near conclusive, and sure doesn't fit any 'refutation,' or 'cast doubt' level of evidence. It seems more akin to 'hunch' than 'evidence.'
    My previous quote was from the head prosecutor, who in turn was quasi-quoting the police.

    Seriously, is that the best you have? I'm not even saying Zimmerman is guilty, just that this isn't something to be settled in the court of public opinion, which you and since9 seem more than happy to do, if it supports the "Zimmerman is fine under stand your ground" side.
    "If we were to ever consider citizenship as the least bit matter of merit instead of birthright, imagine who should be selected as deserved representation of our democracy: someone who would risk their daily livelihood to cast an individually statistically insignificant vote, or those who wrap themselves in the flag against slightest slights." - agenthex

  20. #20
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Fallon, Nevada, USA
    Posts
    5,580
    Quote Originally Posted by Tawnos View Post
    My previous quote was from the head prosecutor, who in turn was quasi-quoting the police.

    Seriously, is that the best you have? I'm not even saying Zimmerman is guilty, just that this isn't something to be settled in the court of public opinion, which you and since9 seem more than happy to do, if it supports the "Zimmerman is fine under stand your ground" side.
    That isn't the case. Otherwise, we would be siding with "Zimmerman's guilty," which is what the 'court of public opinion' has already decided. My opinion is quite at odds with the opinion predominant in the press. My opinion is that the evidence so far presented does not refute Zimmerman's claim, nor does it 'cast doubt' upon it. Future evidence may be released that does, but so far, no.


    So, if your previous quote was from the head prosecutor, where is that quote cited?
    "Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." Benjamin Franklin

  21. #21
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Roanoke, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    70
    Quote Originally Posted by Tawnos View Post
    Only if the defense was not a result of them putting themselves into a position where it's required, which is what is in question in this case.
    Not entirely accurate. If you did put yourself in that position (i.e. you're part of the problem), you may still use deadly force to defend your life, but you have a duty to "retreat to the wall" first.

    If Zimmerman had exhausted all of his efforts to retreat, then he could still use deadly force.

  22. #22
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Roanoke, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    70
    By the way... we've all seen by now the picture of the back of Zimmerman's bloody head. Has anyone stopped to ponder why the prosecutor would have been the one to introduce evidence that is exculpatory in nature?

  23. #23
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Fallon, Nevada, USA
    Posts
    5,580
    Quote Originally Posted by thaJack View Post
    By the way... we've all seen by now the picture of the back of Zimmerman's bloody head. Has anyone stopped to ponder why the prosecutor would have been the one to introduce evidence that is exculpatory in nature?
    Yes.


    The prosecutor presented a charge that isn't supported by the evidence, making a conviction very unlikely, but showing that 'we are doing our job', appeasing the mob mentality. And, by making the case un-winnable, appeasing the other side and allowing Zimmerman to eventually be acquitted of all charges. It is a political and strategical move to keep the peace, and keep the job.
    "Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." Benjamin Franklin

  24. #24
    Regular Member rushcreek2's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Colorado Springs. CO
    Posts
    924
    My better judgement keeps telling me to stay out of this back & forth - but..........

    PROVOKE - (Funk & Wagnall)

    1 To stir to anger or resentment; irritate; vex.

    2 To arouse or stimulate to some action.

    3 To stir up or bring about

    4 To induce or cause; elicit

    Generally "provocative" behavior/conduct is defined by the cultural norms/perceptions of "others" - not the "provoker"

    Zimmerman's course of action (conduct) was comprised of observation, a well-intended -although mistaken- need for surveillance that necessitated the following of Martin initially by vehicle which logically and reasonably could have provoked a defensive emotional response from Martin. There is at least one witness reporting 2 people running past their field of vision - apparently Zimmerman pursuing Martin.

    Zimmerman's continuing to follow Martin on foot, and eventually running after him understandably led Martin to become increasingly anxious, angry, agitated, and prepared for a potential physical confrontation requiring an aggressive response.

    Here in the nut-shell rests the State's argument: that Zimmerman's conduct provoked the ensuing confrontation that actually began when Martin back tracked, verbally challenged Zimmerman for following/pursuing him - when he (Martin) had presumably done nothing to warrant such action.

    Evidence that I am aware of thus far leads ME to presume, and conclude that Martin was stirred to anger, and resentment by Zimmerman's foregoing conduct PRIOR TO to confrontation, and altercation. Martin confronted Zimmerman, verbally challenged him, struck Zimmerman in the head with his fist breaking his nose, and knocking him to the ground. Martin then , pursuant to engaging Z in a physical altercation, commenced to further inflict injuries upon Z by forcing his head into the concrete sidewalk

    The question before the jury should be : Did Zimmerman deserve an ass kicking for engaging in his prior conduct of following and ultimately pursuing Martin ? If Martin was the one charged with physically assaulting Zimmerman that night , and nothing more had occurred, I believe the charges would have been eventually dismissed. or Martin would be acquitted= any reasonable jury would find that Zimmerman's actions provoked Martin and that Martin was therefore justifed in his actions.

    I have a hunch that this will be the road map for the trial- in effect the State of Florida will endeavor to persuade the 12 members of the jury that Martin's death was avoidable, preventable, and most importantly PRECIPITATED by Zimmerman's conduct that night. In modern parlance - Zimmerman's BAD.
    Problem is - that doesn't = 2nd degree murder.

    This incident was a mistake gone terribly bad. Unfortunately Martin cannot recover from the consequences of the mistake, and that created an element of inequity in the mistake equation.
    Last edited by rushcreek2; 05-06-2012 at 11:58 AM.

  25. #25
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    SW Idaho
    Posts
    1,552
    Quote Originally Posted by rushcreek2 View Post
    The question before the jury should be : Did Zimmerman deserve an ass kicking for engaging in his prior conduct of following and ultimately pursuing Martin ? If Martin was the one charged with physically assaulting Zimmerman that night , and nothing more had occurred, I believe the charges would have been eventually dismissed. or Martin would be acquitted= any reasonable jury would find that Zimmerman's actions provoked Martin and that Martin was therefore justifed in his actions.
    No...juries do not exist to determine if street justice, which had already been meted out, was "deserved" by one or another party. Juries exist to determine if a law was broken. An ass kicking is not a legal reaction to someone following you, which is not a crime.
    Last edited by ManInBlack; 05-06-2012 at 12:01 PM.
    Total ignorance: an Obama supporter's stock in trade
    Quote Originally Posted by Beretta92FSLady View Post
    All the talk about Overthrowing Big Government, Revolution, etc., it's just another one of those nostalgic ideas that individuals have idealized.
    O RLY?
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...and_rebellions
    Quote Originally Posted by Beretta92FSLady View Post
    Books are overrated; and so is history.

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •