What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

Florida boy killed by Neighborhood Watch (3 Viewers)

Typical of those people...

Mike Tyson thinks that George Zimmerman deserves violent retribution for the shooting of Trayvon Martin."My personal feeling is that, as a young kid that was beat on by a bully, that was pretty much singled out—the guy [Zimmerman] stalked him, didn't follow instructions from a superior officer, when they said, 'Stop following the kid.' That tells you everything right there. But my all-around perspective, I wasn't there, I don't know what happened. But it's just so widespread and overt what happened. Even though this is the best country in the world, certain laws in this country are a disgrace to a nation of savages. It's a majority versus a minority. That's the way God planned it. He didn't want to do something about it, He wanted us to do something about it. And if we don't, it's gonna stay this way. We have to continue tweeting, we have to continue marching, we have to continue fighting for Trayvon Martin. If that's not the case, he was killed in vain, and we're just waiting for it to happen to our children. He'll have gotten away with impunity. It's a disgrace that man hasn't been dragged out of his house and tied to a car and taken away. That's the only kind of retribution that people like that understand. It's a disgrace that man hasn't been shot yet. Forget about him being arrested--the fact that he hasn't been shot yet is a disgrace. That's how I feel personally about it."In 1992, Tyson was convicted of raping Desiree Washington, a beauty pageant contestant, and served three years in prison.
 
Interesting analysis:

Prosecutors face hurdles in Trayvon Martin case

http://www.ajc.com/news/nation-world/prosecutors-face-hurdles-in-1414276.html

Check this part out:

Zimmerman's lawyers would only have to prove by a preponderance of evidence — a relatively low legal standard — that he acted in self-defense at a pretrial hearing to prevent the case from going to trial.There's a "high likelihood it could be dismissed by the judge even before the jury gets to hear the case," Florida defense attorney Richard Hornsby said.

However, later in the same article:

A judge could dismiss the charge based on the "stand your ground" law, legal experts said. But some experts say the judge will also be under tremendous pressure to let the case go forward.

"Judges are not likely to take that out of the hands of the jury," said Florida defense attorney Randy Reep.

 
Typical of those people...

Mike Tyson thinks that George Zimmerman deserves violent retribution for the shooting of Trayvon Martin."My personal feeling is that, as a young kid that was beat on by a bully, that was pretty much singled out—the guy [Zimmerman] stalked him, didn't follow instructions from a superior officer, when they said, 'Stop following the kid.' That tells you everything right there. But my all-around perspective, I wasn't there, I don't know what happened. But it's just so widespread and overt what happened. Even though this is the best country in the world, certain laws in this country are a disgrace to a nation of savages. It's a majority versus a minority. That's the way God planned it. He didn't want to do something about it, He wanted us to do something about it. And if we don't, it's gonna stay this way. We have to continue tweeting, we have to continue marching, we have to continue fighting for Trayvon Martin. If that's not the case, he was killed in vain, and we're just waiting for it to happen to our children. He'll have gotten away with impunity. It's a disgrace that man hasn't been dragged out of his house and tied to a car and taken away. That's the only kind of retribution that people like that understand. It's a disgrace that man hasn't been shot yet. Forget about him being arrested--the fact that he hasn't been shot yet is a disgrace. That's how I feel personally about it."In 1992, Tyson was convicted of raping Desiree Washington, a beauty pageant contestant, and served three years in prison.
Are you referring to former heavyweight champions? Or did you have something else in mind?
 
Typical of those people...

Mike Tyson thinks that George Zimmerman deserves violent retribution for the shooting of Trayvon Martin."My personal feeling is that, as a young kid that was beat on by a bully, that was pretty much singled out—the guy [Zimmerman] stalked him, didn't follow instructions from a superior officer, when they said, 'Stop following the kid.' That tells you everything right there. But my all-around perspective, I wasn't there, I don't know what happened. But it's just so widespread and overt what happened. Even though this is the best country in the world, certain laws in this country are a disgrace to a nation of savages. It's a majority versus a minority. That's the way God planned it. He didn't want to do something about it, He wanted us to do something about it. And if we don't, it's gonna stay this way. We have to continue tweeting, we have to continue marching, we have to continue fighting for Trayvon Martin. If that's not the case, he was killed in vain, and we're just waiting for it to happen to our children. He'll have gotten away with impunity. It's a disgrace that man hasn't been dragged out of his house and tied to a car and taken away. That's the only kind of retribution that people like that understand. It's a disgrace that man hasn't been shot yet. Forget about him being arrested--the fact that he hasn't been shot yet is a disgrace. That's how I feel personally about it."In 1992, Tyson was convicted of raping Desiree Washington, a beauty pageant contestant, and served three years in prison.
Are you referring to former heavyweight champions? Or did you have something else in mind?
I sat out the first 171 pages of this thread because I needed to know what Evander Holyfield thought about this situation before weighing in myself. Still waiting, but hearing Iron Mike's thoughts is better than nothing.
 
Typical of those people...

Mike Tyson thinks that George Zimmerman deserves violent retribution for the shooting of Trayvon Martin."My personal feeling is that, as a young kid that was beat on by a bully, that was pretty much singled out—the guy [Zimmerman] stalked him, didn't follow instructions from a superior officer, when they said, 'Stop following the kid.' That tells you everything right there. But my all-around perspective, I wasn't there, I don't know what happened. But it's just so widespread and overt what happened. Even though this is the best country in the world, certain laws in this country are a disgrace to a nation of savages. It's a majority versus a minority. That's the way God planned it. He didn't want to do something about it, He wanted us to do something about it. And if we don't, it's gonna stay this way. We have to continue tweeting, we have to continue marching, we have to continue fighting for Trayvon Martin. If that's not the case, he was killed in vain, and we're just waiting for it to happen to our children. He'll have gotten away with impunity. It's a disgrace that man hasn't been dragged out of his house and tied to a car and taken away. That's the only kind of retribution that people like that understand. It's a disgrace that man hasn't been shot yet. Forget about him being arrested--the fact that he hasn't been shot yet is a disgrace. That's how I feel personally about it."In 1992, Tyson was convicted of raping Desiree Washington, a beauty pageant contestant, and served three years in prison.
Are you referring to former heavyweight champions? Or did you have something else in mind?
Former heavyweight champions that have been convicted of rape obviously...Thanks for playing...
 
Interesting analysis:

Zimmerman's lawyers would only have to prove by a preponderance of evidence — a relatively low legal standard — that he acted in self-defense at a pretrial hearing to prevent the case from going to trial.There's a "high likelihood it could be dismissed by the judge even before the jury gets to hear the case," Florida defense attorney Richard Hornsby said.
Preponderance is a low standard but it's higher than reasonable doubt. It would require a showing that it was more likely than not that Zimmerman was acting in self-defense which I'm not sure they have based on the evidence that has come out.
 
Interesting analysis:

Zimmerman's lawyers would only have to prove by a preponderance of evidence — a relatively low legal standard — that he acted in self-defense at a pretrial hearing to prevent the case from going to trial.There's a "high likelihood it could be dismissed by the judge even before the jury gets to hear the case," Florida defense attorney Richard Hornsby said.
Preponderance is a low standard but it's higher than reasonable doubt. It would require a showing that it was more likely than not that Zimmerman was acting in self-defense which I'm not sure they have based on the evidence that has come out.
That makes sense to me, except for this Stand Your Ground law. That law is bizarre, and who knows how a judge is going to handle it?
 
You should be happy tim, you got the railroad you wanted...

Now we can get rid of the Hispanic guy also...

The Texas Castle Doctrine is much better than the Stand your Ground law, as long as you drag them back on your property your gold...

 
Interesting analysis:

Zimmerman's lawyers would only have to prove by a preponderance of evidence — a relatively low legal standard — that he acted in self-defense at a pretrial hearing to prevent the case from going to trial.There's a "high likelihood it could be dismissed by the judge even before the jury gets to hear the case," Florida defense attorney Richard Hornsby said.
Preponderance is a low standard but it's higher than reasonable doubt. It would require a showing that it was more likely than not that Zimmerman was acting in self-defense which I'm not sure they have based on the evidence that has come out.
That makes sense to me, except for this Stand Your Ground law. That law is bizarre, and who knows how a judge is going to handle it?
I'm not sure what is confusing. I don't know Florida law and am just basing it on what you quoted above. But I was assuming that the Florida defense attorney was giving the legal standard which incorporated of Stand Your Ground. So he's saying the burden is on Zimmerman's attorneys to show that it was more likely than not that he was acting in self-defense. Yes, that's a low bar as far as legal standards go, but I don't think that means that he can automatically reach it.
 
Interesting analysis:

Zimmerman's lawyers would only have to prove by a preponderance of evidence — a relatively low legal standard — that he acted in self-defense at a pretrial hearing to prevent the case from going to trial.There's a "high likelihood it could be dismissed by the judge even before the jury gets to hear the case," Florida defense attorney Richard Hornsby said.
Preponderance is a low standard but it's higher than reasonable doubt. It would require a showing that it was more likely than not that Zimmerman was acting in self-defense which I'm not sure they have based on the evidence that has come out.
Preponderance of evidence is in civil litigation, and criminal prosecution is beyond reasonable doubt.
 
Interesting analysis:

Zimmerman's lawyers would only have to prove by a preponderance of evidence — a relatively low legal standard — that he acted in self-defense at a pretrial hearing to prevent the case from going to trial.There's a "high likelihood it could be dismissed by the judge even before the jury gets to hear the case," Florida defense attorney Richard Hornsby said.
Preponderance is a low standard but it's higher than reasonable doubt. It would require a showing that it was more likely than not that Zimmerman was acting in self-defense which I'm not sure they have based on the evidence that has come out.
Preponderance of evidence is in civil litigation, and criminal prosecution is beyond reasonable doubt.
Different aspects of litigations have different standards. The standard for admission of evidence, for instance, is that it tends to prove or disprove some fact. The Florida legislature is free to define their own standards for different aspects of criminal cases subject to constitutional concerns. I'm believing that a Florida defense attorney knows the correct legal standard for this hearing.If you don't know what you're talking about, don't try to lawyer in the FFA. We have enough actual lawyers who don't know what they're talking about.

 
Last edited:
Interesting analysis:

Zimmerman's lawyers would only have to prove by a preponderance of evidence — a relatively low legal standard — that he acted in self-defense at a pretrial hearing to prevent the case from going to trial.There's a "high likelihood it could be dismissed by the judge even before the jury gets to hear the case," Florida defense attorney Richard Hornsby said.
Preponderance is a low standard but it's higher than reasonable doubt. It would require a showing that it was more likely than not that Zimmerman was acting in self-defense which I'm not sure they have based on the evidence that has come out.
Preponderance of evidence is in civil litigation, and criminal prosecution is beyond reasonable doubt.
Different aspects of litigations have different standards. The standard for admission of evidence, for instance, is that it tends to prove or disprove some fact. The Florida legislature is free to define their own standards for different aspects of criminal cases. I'm believing that a Florida defense attorney knows the correct legal standard for this hearing.If you don't know what you're talking about, don't try to lawyer in the FFA. We have enough actual lawyers who don't know what they're talking about.
Those would be the ones you don't agree with???
 
Okay, who were the ones claiming that if a black man had shot a white hispanicTM man and claimed "self-defense" even though the victim was unarmed that the arrest would be immediate?

Justice for Daniel

 
Okay, who were the ones claiming that if a black man had shot a white hispanicTM man and claimed "self-defense" even though the victim was unarmed that the arrest would be immediate?

Justice for Daniel
I was one of them. I still believe that this is generally the truth, in spite of your anecdote. However, your anecdote is giving me cause to reconsider exactly how accurate I was.
 
'Leeroy Jenkins said:
'TexanFan02 said:
'Ministry of Pain said:
What happens when Zimmerman is NOT found guilty?

Let's jump to the end game here. We know none of the facts, he could be found innocent or guilty, but assume he beats the charges or a jury finds him not guilty...what will the reaction be in Florida and other places around the country? There was a huge outcry of emotions on both sides and in here at the mighty FFA as well. In one sense it's a relief that an arrest has been made but you get the feeling it won't stop there. The media and some of these new social mediums like Twitter, Facebook, these things were not around for some of the major court cases in history. This could become even more volatile if Zimmerman is not found guilty and sent to prison. Coordinated looting has not rally taken place yet but this type of event could trigger something like that.
I think that's unlikely, but check with Christo, he's heavily invested in this thread.
I'm not so sure about that. Especially if this PTSD thing has merit. And if it true that travon threw the first punch and was pummeling him, especially if combined with this PTSD scenario, while it still is heartbreaking that an unarmed kid who probably was spooked he was being followed is dead, Zim might still be technically not guilty of murder 2. But that's why the charge surprises me. Manslaughter would have been easier to show under these circumstances seemingly. So perhaps there is more out there. We will find out at trial.
I don't see a plea deal as very likely here, despite that the murder charge might suggest that it's in play.But I've read the jury can still find him guilty of manslaughter. That is, charging with Murder 2 does not take manslaughter off the table.

 
'Ministry of Pain said:
'timschochet said:
MOP, the answer to your question depends in part on the makeup of the jury:e. 1. First off, I think that a large part of the volatile reaction to this case was defused today. I believe that African-Americans were more outraged that Zimmerman was not arrested than they were by any other aspect, even the alleged crime itself. Now he has been arrested, and that is removed. Although this case will continue to garner much attention, I'm not sure it will be quite as volatile. And if Zimmerman is ultimately acquitted, the reaction MAY be: "Well, what we wanted was for him to be tried. Now he has been." Maybe.2. However, if the jury is lily white, or Hispanic, if there are no blacks anywhere near the jury, and Zimmerman is acquitted, then we could be in for a heap of trouble. Then it's the Rodney King verdict all over again. 3. Further however: as I've stated before, the Rodney King riots were not inevitable.The police screwed that up. Most people did not riot. And the ones who did were allowed to run rampant. If worst comes to the worst, there doesn't have to be riots if the authorities know what they're doing.
:thumbup:I hope 1 is right but I'm thinking maybe not so much...media loves this story and in an election year...this thing probably won't go to trial for a long time. The 2nd scenario is scary.
I'm just hoping Zimmerman can get a fair trial without the pressure the article Tim posted claims. I doubt it happens and lawyers will file appeals dragging this thing out. What the result will be is much larger than right or wrong by one George Zimmerman. We will see more media and political protests of many kinds. Threats of riots and violence could be the norm. It will all result to a system where you are innocent until the mob responds, then you are guilty until you can prove your innocence, and that is if there is a fair trial. Hopefully, some good things may come out of it. There may actually be a change the stand your ground law before Zimmerman's trial is done, and this may calm the mob down (hopefully). People that own guns may think twice before pulling the trigger and only do so as a last resort, which they should know in the first place.
 
Okay, who were the ones claiming that if a black man had shot a white hispanicTM man and claimed "self-defense" even though the victim was unarmed that the arrest would be immediate?

Justice for Daniel
I was one of them. I still believe that this is generally the truth, in spite of your anecdote. However, your anecdote is giving me cause to reconsider exactly how accurate I was.
Unusual choice of words tim, I guess you find it amusing...And no you will not reconsider...

 
Okay, who were the ones claiming that if a black man had shot a white hispanicTM man and claimed "self-defense" even though the victim was unarmed that the arrest would be immediate?

Justice for Daniel
I was one of them. I still believe that this is generally the truth, in spite of your anecdote. However, your anecdote is giving me cause to reconsider exactly how accurate I was.
Unusual choice of words tim, I guess you find it amusing...And no you will not reconsider...
:lol: Are you like 12 years old?

 
If you don't know what you're talking about, don't try to lawyer in the FFA. We have enough actual lawyers who don't know what they're talking about.
Anybody else notice that none of our resident lawyers posted anything in the "Minnesota lawyers get cleaned out by Nigerian scam artists" thread? I think it's time for people to fess up so we know who among us fell victim to this.
 
Okay, who were the ones claiming that if a black man had shot a white hispanicTM man and claimed "self-defense" even though the victim was unarmed that the arrest would be immediate?

Justice for Daniel
I was one of them. I still believe that this is generally the truth, in spite of your anecdote. However, your anecdote is giving me cause to reconsider exactly how accurate I was.
Unusual choice of words tim, I guess you find it amusing...And no you will not reconsider...
:lol: Are you like 12 years old?
I have 12 year old socks, I just know how you operate is all...I must say I am kind of surprised that you of all people are throwing your Hispanic brother under the bus, this will come back to haunt you when you get on your illegal immigration kick...

 
I understand how the courts work Christo, but thanks for your vigilance. Read a good quote about Mitch McConnell yesterday. "He has a considerable knack for being scrupulously accurate and rarely honest."No idea why that came to mind here.
I think what bothers you so much is that I am accurate and honest. I'd love for you to point out where you think I've been dishonest in this thread.
 
Okay, who were the ones claiming that if a black man had shot a white hispanicTM man and claimed "self-defense" even though the victim was unarmed that the arrest would be immediate?

Justice for Daniel
I was one of them. I still believe that this is generally the truth, in spite of your anecdote. However, your anecdote is giving me cause to reconsider exactly how accurate I was.
Unusual choice of words tim, I guess you find it amusing...And no you will not reconsider...
:lol: Are you like 12 years old?
I have 12 year old socks, I just know how you operate is all...I must say I am kind of surprised that you of all people are throwing your Hispanic brother under the bus, this will come back to haunt you when you get on your illegal immigration kick...
:lmao:
 
Trayvon Martin's mom this morning: "I believe this was an accident."

I didn't hear the whole statement, which was on the Today show, so I may have taken it out of context. But accident and 2nd degree murder seem to be slightly inconsistent.

 
Something else that they're saying on TV right now, and I have no idea if this is true: the "Stand Your Ground" law is going to be used at the preliminary hearing to attempt to get this case thrown out. But if that fails, then Stand Your Ground will not be a subject for the main trial; once the prelim threshold has been passed, SYG no longer applies, and it becomes an issue then of murder vs. self-defense.

Anyone think this is accurate?

 
Apparently this was done so he cannot claim self defense...

No way he does time for 2nd degree murder, they crapped all over themselves with this charge, even the mother knows better...

SANFORD, Fla. (AP) -- Prosecutors face steep hurdles to win a second-degree murder conviction against neighborhood watch volunteer George Zimmerman in the shooting death of unarmed teenager Trayvon Martin, experts say.

Zimmerman was charged after a public campaign to make an arrest in the shooting that galvanized the nation for weeks. Now the prosecutor and her team will have to prove Zimmerman intentionally went after Martin instead of shooting him in self-defense, to refute arguments that a Florida law empowered him to use deadly force.
 
Okay, who were the ones claiming that if a black man had shot a white hispanicTM man and claimed "self-defense" even though the victim was unarmed that the arrest would be immediate?

Justice for Daniel
I was one of them. I still believe that this is generally the truth, in spite of your anecdote. However, your anecdote is giving me cause to reconsider exactly how accurate I was.
Anecdote? Really?
 
Apparently this was done so he cannot claim self defense...

No way he does time for 2nd degree murder, they crapped all over themselves with this charge, even the mother knows better...

SANFORD, Fla. (AP) -- Prosecutors face steep hurdles to win a second-degree murder conviction against neighborhood watch volunteer George Zimmerman in the shooting death of unarmed teenager Trayvon Martin, experts say.

Zimmerman was charged after a public campaign to make an arrest in the shooting that galvanized the nation for weeks. Now the prosecutor and her team will have to prove Zimmerman intentionally went after Martin instead of shooting him in self-defense, to refute arguments that a Florida law empowered him to use deadly force.
The public wanted a charge....now they get one.

 
First court hearing today in about 3 hours. It will be about bail. I have heard 3 predictions on TV:

1. No bail.

2. Bail, and Zimmerman will be released.

3. A very high bail which Zimmerman won't be able to afford.

Will the judge make the decision today? In fictional cases, the judges always seem to make the decision about bail the same day it's argued. But I don't know if this happens in real life.

 
Okay, who were the ones claiming that if a black man had shot a white hispanicTM man and claimed "self-defense" even though the victim was unarmed that the arrest would be immediate?

Justice for Daniel
I was one of them. I still believe that this is generally the truth, in spite of your anecdote. However, your anecdote is giving me cause to reconsider exactly how accurate I was.
Anecdote? Really?
That's what it is. I'm not taking away from it's legitimacy by saying so. But when someone makes an argument, and then someone else provides a single example as a means to disprove the argument, that example is the definition of an anecdote. A non-anecdotal argument would be something like this: "In the last decade, 1,000 black men who shot somebody claimed self-defense, and of these, at least 400 were not arrested," etc.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
First court hearing today in about 3 hours. It will be about bail. I have heard 3 predictions on TV:

1. No bail.

2. Bail, and Zimmerman will be released.

3. A very high bail which Zimmerman won't be able to afford.

Will the judge make the decision today? In fictional cases, the judges always seem to make the decision about bail the same day it's argued. But I don't know if this happens in real life.
Gee... way to go out on a limb here. :thumbup:
 
Well guys, it's been a good run. I'm sure there will be more to get whipped up over when the sentence comes down, one way or the other. A few years from now this will be just one of the thousands of anecdotes that makes the rest of the world scared to visit our country.
At least 2 to 1 odds Zimmerman walks, either by a hung jury or outright acquittal.
Doubt it. They don't charge crimes with those kind of odds.
They do if they think it will prevent riots in their state. They had no choice but to charge him, guilty or not.

I'm so sick of hearing this crap. It's complete BS. You have no clue as to what you're talking about, and you're impugning the good names of all sorts of public officials. Please stop.
Would you have had the same opinion of these public officials if they had decided not to charge?
 
First court hearing today in about 3 hours. It will be about bail. I have heard 3 predictions on TV:

1. No bail.

2. Bail, and Zimmerman will be released.

3. A very high bail which Zimmerman won't be able to afford.

Will the judge make the decision today? In fictional cases, the judges always seem to make the decision about bail the same day it's argued. But I don't know if this happens in real life.
Gee... way to go out on a limb here. :thumbup:
That's what CNN does.But I will go out on a limb.

#3.

 
Tim your eyes are wide shut and you choose to not perceive what's in front of you, even when looking at it, as if you had the eyes of your mind closed because it makes you feel better about yourself and you do not have to make a connection to the world that is all around you...

 
Trayvon Martin's mom this morning: "I believe this was an accident."

I didn't hear the whole statement, which was on the Today show, so I may have taken it out of context. But accident and 2nd degree murder seem to be slightly inconsistent.
Where do you come up with this stuff?
 
Well guys, it's been a good run. I'm sure there will be more to get whipped up over when the sentence comes down, one way or the other. A few years from now this will be just one of the thousands of anecdotes that makes the rest of the world scared to visit our country.
At least 2 to 1 odds Zimmerman walks, either by a hung jury or outright acquittal.
Doubt it. They don't charge crimes with those kind of odds.
They do if they think it will prevent riots in their state. They had no choice but to charge him, guilty or not.

I'm so sick of hearing this crap. It's complete BS. You have no clue as to what you're talking about, and you're impugning the good names of all sorts of public officials. Please stop.
Would you have had the same opinion of these public officials if they had decided not to charge?
I certainly would. And I stated it earlier in the thread. I'm not going to look it up now but you can if you want. I was very clear about it.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top