Another Judge blows it big time

Dickieboy · Jul 16, 2013

haymarket said:
...Before ALEC did their dirty work around then ation and changed these laws, the charge to the jury would have been radically different...

Huh? Even in YOUR state SYG is the law...signed by Granholm, a Democrat as I'm sure you are aware:

Granholm signed Michigan’s “stand your ground” bill into law in 2006.

‘Stand your ground’ laws not just GOP policy, records show | The Daily Caller

Kinda confused now. Isn't your meme that ALEC is a tool only for the 'right wing'? Please explain Granholm's actions...thx

ps...also note the other Democratic governors (from previous link) who signed this 'ALEC dirty work' which kinda delegitimizes YOUR meme...

Democratic governors who signed “stand your ground” bills, or otherwise permitted them to become law, include Kathleen Blanco of Louisiana, Jennifer Granholm of Michigan, Brian Schweitzer of Montana, John Lynch of New Hampshire, Brad Henry of Oklahoma, Phil Bredesen of Tennessee, Joe Manchin of West Virginia and Janet Napolitano of Arizona – now the U.S. Secretary of Homeland Security.

The bills in Louisiana and West Virginia passed with Democratic control of both houses in the states’ legislatures, in 2006 and 2008, respectively.

haymarket · Jul 16, 2013

Dickieboy said:
Huh? Even in YOUR state SYG is the law...signed by Granholm, a Democrat as I'm sure you are aware:

‘Stand your ground’ laws not just GOP policy, records show | The Daily Caller

Kinda confused now. Isn't your meme that ALEC is a tool only for the 'right wing'? Please explain Granholm's actions...thx

ps...also note the other Democratic governors (from previous link) who signed this 'ALEC dirty work' which kinda delegitimizes YOUR meme...

Since you know more about this than I do, please compare the Florida law and the Michigan law and tell us if they are identical or do they have differences and if the same jury charge would have been made in Michigan.

The Michigan provision says this

An individual who has not or is not engaged in the commission of a crime at the time he or she uses force other than deadly force may use force other than deadly force against another individual anywhere he or she has the legal right to be with no duty to retreat if he or she honestly and reasonably believes that the use of that force is necessary to defend himself or herself or another individual from the imminent unlawful use of force by another individual.”

Read more: http://www.ammoland.com/2012/05/what-is-michigans-stand-your-ground-law/#ixzz2ZEOsAOxk

Martin was using lawful force to defend himself against Zimmerman. Thus the Michigan law would not have protected Zimmerman after his tracking and confronting of Martin

ChrisL · Jul 16, 2013

haymarket said:
Since you know more about this than I do, please compare the Florida law and the Michigan law and tell us if they are identical or do they have differences and if the same jury charge would have been made in Michigan.

The Michigan provision says this

Martin was using lawful force to defend himself against Zimmerman. Thus the Michigan law would not have protected Zimmerman after his tracking and confronting of Martin

Our justice system has spoken. End of story.

haymarket · Jul 16, 2013

ChrisL said:
Our justice system has spoken. End of story.

then why are you posting? Do you tell those supporting the verdict that it is the end of story also?

ChrisL · Jul 16, 2013

haymarket said:
then why are you posting? Do you tell those supporting the verdict that it is the end of story also?

Make some kind of semblance of sense when you address me please.

Dickieboy · Jul 16, 2013

haymarket said:
Since you know more about this than I do, please compare the Florida law and the Michigan law and tell us if they are identical or do they have differences and if the same jury charge would have been made in Michigan.

The Michigan provision says this

Martin was using lawful force to defend himself against Zimmerman. Thus the Michigan law would not have protected Zimmerman after his tracking and confronting of Martin

Nice dodge...

Dickieboy · Jul 16, 2013

haymarket said:
Martin was using lawful force to defend himself against Zimmerman. Thus the Michigan law would not have protected Zimmerman after his tracking and confronting of Martin

Since this is your supposition please point out evidence that Martin "honestly and reasonably believed(sic) that the use of that force was(sic) necessary to defend himself or herself or another individual from the imminent unlawful use of force by another individual.”

haymarket · Jul 16, 2013

Dickieboy said:
Since this is your supposition please point out evidence that Martin "honestly and reasonably believed(sic) that the use of that force was(sic) necessary to defend himself or herself or another individual from the imminent unlawful use of force by another individual.”

Thats pretty easy. Martin was being followed - pursued - and possibly in his mind even stalked - by somebody at night. In the rain no less. People here tell me that no sensible person up to any good would be out in the rain like that. So this guy had to be suspicious. He had every reason to believe that he was in grave danger and when the person stalkign him got in his face and a confrontation began, it confirmed his worst fears.

everybody here tells me that the standard is his fear of his own life..... right?

haymarket · Jul 16, 2013

Dickieboy said:
Nice dodge...

its a Lincoln.

Dickieboy · Jul 16, 2013

haymarket said:
Thats pretty easy. Martin was being followed - pursued - and possibly in his mind even stalked - by somebody at night. In the rain no less. People here tell me that no sensible person up to any good would be out in the rain like that. So this guy had to be suspicious. He had every reason to believe that he was in grave danger and when the person stalkign him got in his face and a confrontation began, it confirmed his worst fears.

everybody here tells me that the standard is his fear of his own life..... right?

Again as this is your supposition can you supply evidence that Z 'got in his face'? Z's story contradicts this...

Dickieboy · Jul 16, 2013

haymarket said:
its a Lincoln.

Please pontificate on how Granholm, and other Dem governors, is in cahoots with ALEC as was previously queried with regards to syg.

haymarket · Jul 16, 2013

Dickieboy said:
Again as this is your supposition can you supply evidence that Z 'got in his face'? Z's story contradicts this...

The events of the night proved their was a confrontation. The events of the night clearly show that Zimmerman initiated the entire episode with Martin. The events of the night clearly show that the authorities Zimmercam called advised him and told him not to continue following Martin..."we don't need you to do that".

yeah - he got in his face all right.... every thing that night points to it.

haymarket · Jul 16, 2013

Dickieboy said:
Please pontificate on how Granholm, and other Dem governors, is in cahoots with ALEC as was previously queried with regards to syg.

Did you not see my previous response? Apparently you did because I could have sworn you replied to it and did not like it one bit.

Dickieboy · Jul 16, 2013

haymarket said:
The events of the night proved their was a confrontation. The events of the night clearly show that Zimmerman initiated the entire episode with Martin. The events of the night clearly show that the authorities Zimmercam called advised him and told him not to continue following Martin..."we don't need you to do that".

yeah - he got in his face all right.... every thing that night points to it.

Just for my edification does 'continue following Martin' = 'he got in his face'...?

Was Martin walking backwards as Z was 'following him'?...:lamo

haymarket · Jul 16, 2013

Dickieboy said:
Just for my edification does 'continue following Martin' = 'he got in his face'...?

Was Martin walking backwards as Z was 'following him'?...:lamo

you really have the strangest sense of humor which I do not understand one little bit. It must be that or else your understanding of terms in english is not what it should be.

Dickieboy · Jul 16, 2013

haymarket said:
Did you not see my previous response? Apparently you did because I could have sworn you replied to it and did not like it one bit.

Yes, I did respond to your NEW assertion. But you didn't address MY response to your 'evil ALEC' assertion specifically (note brevity edit in #51)...try again if you wish

TurtleDude · Jul 16, 2013

The lefties who wanted to use this case to bludgeon gun owners and self defense advocates and stir up black racism lost. That's why they are so bitter. They have been getting their way for several years and now they got beat on a case and they are upset

Dickieboy · Jul 16, 2013

haymarket said:
you really have the strangest sense of humor which I do not understand one little bit. It must be that or else your understanding of terms in english is not what it should be.

Nice dodge...er, Lincoln...:lamo

haymarket · Jul 16, 2013

Dickieboy said:
Yes, I did respond to your NEW assertion. But you didn't address MY response to your 'evil ALEC' assertion specifically (note brevity edit in #51)...try again if you wish

Your thoughts on ALEC mean less than nothing to me.

Dickieboy · Jul 16, 2013

haymarket said:
Your thoughts on ALEC mean less than nothing to me.

As yours do to me...but it was YOU who brought ALEC into the discussion (again). I can only presume that since you did you wanted to engage in debate about them (again). Perhaps you can explain how Granholm signed 'evil ALEC' SYG legislation (as twice previously requested). Or perhaps you want to disengage in this ALEC evil witch hunt...?

haymarket · Jul 16, 2013

Dickieboy said:
As yours do to me...but it was YOU who brought ALEC into the discussion (again). I can only presume that since you did you wanted to engage in debate about them (again). Perhaps you can explain how Granholm signed 'evil ALEC' SYG legislation (as twice previously requested). Or perhaps you want to disengage in this ALEC evil witch hunt...?

Exposing ALEC is no witch hunt. It is something that needs to be done. If Granholm or any democrat went along with an ALEC law - I condemn them for it.

Sadly , I have seen too many democrats cast wrong votes. That is politics.

Dickieboy · Jul 16, 2013

haymarket said:
Exposing ALEC is no witch hunt. It is something that needs to be done. If Granholm or any democrat went along with an ALEC law - I condemn them for it.

Sadly , I have seen too many democrats cast wrong votes. That is politics.

Maybe you are just wrong on this SYG issue as apparently both parties have passed it legislatively and signed it executively (link previously furnished)...?

buck · Jul 17, 2013

I realize this will make zero difference to Haymarket, but it was related so thougth I would post it here:

Reporter's Notebook: George Zimmerman trial | News - Home

Just a couple of quotes:

Even if she did read that instruction, though, the jury -- especially this jury, apparently -- may have determined based on the evidence Zimmerman "exhausted every reasonable means to escape the danger" because he could not reasonably escape. (That is one reason why the defense did not seek a Stand Your Ground pretrial immunity hearing, knowing they would still get the benefit of the Stand Your Ground instruction as part of the justifiable use of force instruction.)

The Gibbs case has a lot of similarities to the Zimmerman scenario.

The opinion states Gibbs, "a 40-year old black woman, saw an elderly white man and woman sitting on a bench outside an apartment building and said to them, 'Good morning. How are you?' When the couple did not respond, she asked why they did not return her greeting. The woman, Julia Osmun, said to appellant, 'Get away from here you dirty n&$@er, you don't belong here.' (Gibbs) responded with a racial slur and an obscene 'mooning' gesture and the two women wound up in a physical altercation."

The court overturned Gibbs' conviction because the judge gave the first aggressor instruction when Gibbs did not use or threaten force until after Osmun swung at her, noting "the victim verbally attacked (Gibbs) and then aggressively approached and swung at (Gibbs)."

That's exactly what Zimmerman claimed Martin did, verbally attacking him (quoting Trayvon as saying supposedly "you got a problem, homey") and then aggressively approaching him and swinging at Zimmerman, only in Gibbs the swing missed, and in this case Zimmerman got popped in the nose -- again according to testimony.

Another Judge blows it big time

warrior of the wetlands