No you really haven't.



"Literally the only way to leave a building is by driving away." - TSM_Bguitar, internet forums poster.

George Zimmerman pulls family from overturned SUV in Sanford, news at 11.

It's only a matter of time before he runs for public office!

What a ****up. He just loves being a hero.

Ok... I think I MAY be able to clear up a little confusion between Jon'c and TSM_Bguitar... Maybe not though.
Jon'c I don't know where the marissa case is at, but in California it is fairly common for a garage to have the bay door obviously facing the street, and the second door often enters into the house. If marissa's garage setup was similar and if her bay door only opened via remote(unlikely but let's assume) AND if the remote was in the vehicle she could have actually been physically trapped in the garage without her car keys... Again kind of unlikely since most doors that open via remote also have a doorbell style button inside the garage that also opens them. But still...
TSM_Bguitar, I think Jon'c is arguing directly to the fact that SYG did NOT apply to the marissa case, not if what she did should have landed her in prison. (please correct me if I'm wrong here.) also I believe he is wanting you to read the written statement (which McLongname posted a link to) by the other jurors stating " that B37 shouldn't be treated as any kind of spokesperson for the jury as a whole." I also think Jon'c may have been suggesting that if you are in a life or death situation an your car keys are in the house with your homocidal husband then the pertinent thing to do may be to leave on foot and to hell with the car.

TSM - You have no duty to retreat when someone is on top of you and slamming your head into the sidewalk. Thus, according to Zimmerman's side of the story, Stand Your Ground was a non-issue.

I happened to be on break at work and eating a Caesar salad when the judge was instructing the jury before their decision. The instructions lasted for several minutes, and the "no duty to retreat" part was a second or two of that. Which is also the only time it was mentioned during the entire trial.

Also, Joncy's point about FL requiring a unanimous verdict was that all members of the jury had to agree to the decision. Any disagreement or division about the outcome or verdict were thus settled during deliberation. It's a simple concept.

joncy knows more about my state's laws than most well-informed cops and I think that implies that he is in the media's pocket.

"I would rather argue with a straw man than other posters" - Jon 'C



Well yes according to his side of the story it's quite clear that SYG was applicable. The problem is that his side of the story was in dispute.



Right, thus Stand Your Ground was quite an important part of this trial, as it is an important part of self defense law in Florida.

Ok this seems to be flying past your head over and over again... From what I understand (again please correct me if I am mistaken) , SYG does NOT apply if you are in fact unable to retreat in the first place. That means it did not apply to the case at all, not to Zimmerman, not to Martin, not to my uncle frank. Therefor regular self defense and NOT SYG is what applied in this case. Stand your ground??? Not in this case!!! Does not apply! Not here, nope! No sir-ee! Yes, stand your ground IS part of a broader concept of self defense... But that does not mean that all self defense involved SYG... Like this case. It did not.

So! One more time!!! Unable to retreat in the first place because someone is on top of you and beatin you pretty??? No SYG!!!!!

NASA will be happy to know they don't need wind tunnels anymore, they can just use the wake of this point flying over TSM_Bguitar's head.

>>George Zimmerman was acquitted

According to his side of the story, SYG was NOT APPLICABLE because he had no opportunity to retreat.

ty for reading carefully.

.

If they had gone for manslaughter instead of the much scawier second degree murder they might have gotten a conviction.

But... but... my political aspirations!!

Oh, Jesus.



How?



Consideration is an essential element of every contract. It is not, however, at issue in every dispute over the validity of a contract.

The tax deduction for home mortgage interest is an important part of the federal tax code. It is not, however, at issue in every tax case.

Actual malice is a key element of the civil offense of libel against a public figure. It is not, however, at issue in every, or any, defamation case where the plaintiff is not a public figure.

Now, do you understand what you're doing wrong here?

Bonus question: The state of F-U-topia has self-defense laws identical to Florida's, except that the defense of self-defense is unavailable in cases where the defendant used a knife longer than three inches to defend himself. Assume Zimmerman is being tried in F-U-topia instead of Florida. What result? If different, explain why.

well duh, it's obviously different. zimmerman used a pistol. pistols fire bullets, which pierce like a knife. each bullet can travel for hundreds of yards, and a pistol can fire tens of bullets. that means zimmerman used a knife hundreds of thousands of inches long, or hundreds of thousands of knives each longer than three inches, and therefore zimmerman is guilty of murder a hundred thousand times because he is racist and also literally hitler.

This thread is just vintage massassi.

This thread : the Florida Statutes :: Fizziks fun : the laws of nature

You forgot the airplane on a conveyor belt. I feel like that is entirely separate from fizziks.

This is why you will always be a failure in my eyes.

The defense stood its ground and shot it in the chest.

I'm still holding out for Sarn's contribution to all this.

I can pretty much sum it up for you: WRAAAAAAAAAAAAAA SECOND AMENDMENT REVERSE RACISM OBAMA SANDY HOOK CONSPIRACY!

Fixed that up a bit for ya.

I think you're confusing Sarn with PedHead.

.

Or hitting on a 14 year old in a more populated corner of the internets.

This thread makes me sad I came to check on the forums about five days too late.