George Zimmerman arrested [again] on domestic violence charges

[Don Vito Corleone]

He doesn't know Florida law in this instance correctly. He may know law, but he is incorrect on this point. I am explaining why he is wrong, because what he stated earlier was improper information. I have a problem when someone with his perceived level of expertise by the public gets improper information.

And stop using the logic fallacy again of argument by authority. Just because he is a lawyer doesn't make him automatically defacto right in any debate over laws and legal proceedings. If that was the case, no lawyer would ever lose a case. But I have a point for you, with every case that goes to trial a lawyer team wins and a lawyer team loses.

You have not provided one crumb of evidence for this. You're not a Florida lawyer and you have not cited to any authority for the proposition that I am wrong.

 

[HumblePie]

Precisely what is this based on, pray tell? Do you have any authority at all for this proposition?

Why do you get so angry, so often? There is no reason to use profanity toward me. I have been nothing but civil to you.

Sorry for the profanity. But I can't explain it any simpler.

 

[fskimospy]

He doesn't know Florida law in this instance correctly. He may know law, but he is incorrect on this point. I am explaining why he is wrong, because what he stated earlier was improper information. I have a problem when someone with his perceived level of expertise by the public gets improper information.

And stop using the logic fallacy again of argument by authority. Just because he is a lawyer doesn't make him automatically defacto right in any debate over laws and legal proceedings. If that was the case, no lawyer would ever lose a case. But I have a point for you, with every case that goes to trial a lawyer team wins and a lawyer team loses.

It doesn't make him automatically right, but he has been right so often in your disagreements that it clearly shows you have a lot to learn from him. I see no reason to believe that your position here is any more correct than your previous wrong positions about the law in reference to this case and others, particularly considering that you have provided no evidence for your position.

If you're right and he's wrong, show some examples.

 

[LTC8K6]

Holder will probably prosecute GZ on a civil rights violation and GZ won't be able to fend that off, even though it's totally bogus.

GZ is likely doomed one way or the other. It's just a matter of time.

 

[rudeguy]

Precisely what is this based on, pray tell? Do you have any authority at all for this proposition?

Why do you get so angry, so often? There is no reason to use profanity toward me. I have been nothing but civil to you.

From what I know, FL's gun laws are very similar to MI's. In MI, if you feel your life is in danger you have the right to defend yourself with whatever force you deem is necessary. The only thing that would have prevented that finding with GZ is that he stalked an innocent person and created the situation that led to the killing.

I don't think there is any judge in the world who could decide that ruling in a few seconds, days or even weeks. For a judge to rule that way could open the door to vigilante justice and people knowing how to legally kill an innocent person.

Nothing about this mess is cut and dry. Other than the fact that GZ is scum and he needs to fade off into the sunset.

 

[Don Vito Corleone]

Holder will probably prosecute GZ on a civil rights violation and GZ won't be able to fend that off, even though it's totally bogus.

GZ is likely doomed one way or the other. It's just a matter of time.

I doubt it. Presumably if that were going to happen (which it should not), it would have happened by now. Personally I think DoJ would have been better served announcing that a week or two after the trial, once it was clear there wasn't going to be significant rioting, but then again this is not the first time I have second-guessed the wisdom of a decision by Eric Holder and his agency.

 

[HumblePie]

You have not provided one crumb of evidence for this. You're not a Florida lawyer and you have not cited to any authority for the proposition that I am wrong.

Here is the law in Florida for immunity.

776.032 Immunity from criminal prosecution and civil action for justifiable use of force.—
(1) A person who uses force as permitted in s. 776.012, s. 776.013, or s. 776.031 is justified in using such force and is immune from criminal prosecution and civil action for the use of such force, unless the person against whom force was used is a law enforcement officer, as defined in s. 943.10(14), who was acting in the performance of his or her official duties and the officer identified himself or herself in accordance with any applicable law or the person using force knew or reasonably should have known that the person was a law enforcement officer. As used in this subsection, the term “criminal prosecution” includes arresting, detaining in custody, and charging or prosecuting the defendant.
(2) A law enforcement agency may use standard procedures for investigating the use of force as described in subsection (1), but the agency may not arrest the person for using force unless it determines that there is probable cause that the force that was used was unlawful.
(3) The court shall award reasonable attorney’s fees, court costs, compensation for loss of income, and all expenses incurred by the defendant in defense of any civil action brought by a plaintiff if the court finds that the defendant is immune from prosecution as provided in subsection (1).

That immunity only applies if the defendant claims a defense under either subsections 776.012, s. 776.013, or s. 776.031 for justifiable use of deadly force. Those are the SYG statutes. Those are the newer revisions to the law.

George and attorneys went with the older self defense claim in Florida law when entering their plea of not guilty. Had they entered not guilty by way of one of the newer self defense laws it would automatically trigger an evidence hearing based upon those laws.

If George wanted to now, he can claim his defense as one of the SYG statutes instead. In which case there would be a review of the evidence by a judge on the case to determine if there was self defense. Since the criminal trial is already over, the only thing this would do would be to prevent a civil trial.

George in his motion for an evidence review can simply ask the judge to use the evidence for the review as that presented at the criminal trial already. The judge can agree to grant that request or not. If the judge doesn't grant that request then the judge can have a full blown evidence hearing where all evidence can be presented again. However, this time there would more than likely be no prosecution presenting evidence against self defense AND the Martins would not be able to present evidence either.

So if the judge grants the request to just make a rule based upon evidence presented at trial, it would be an absolute no brainer since a jury already found George Zimmerman innocent of any criminal charges by way of self defense.

If it went to a hearing, the only people presenting evidence would be George and his attorneys. Which would really automatically make the evidence a preponderance amount.

The preponderance for presentation of evidence for self defense for SYG at an evidence hearing was talking about extensively before. Doesn't take much of a google search to find articles on it.

http://www.npr.org/blogs/itsallpoli...nd-laws-under-scrutiny-post-zimmerman-verdict

To conclude, for George to be granted SYG immunity all he needs is a judge to rule that a preponderance of evidence for self defense has been shown.

Is that better for you DVC? Or do you need more? I talked about this a bit recently with my grandfather in law who was a judge in Florida before. Also worked for NASA too.

 

[RampantAndroid]

here is the quote from the special instructions read to the jury.



Meaning they would have to specify WHY they were returning a not guilty verdict. The returned a not guilty BASED OFF SELF DEFENSE. They could have said that self defense was not presented well enough, but still found George Zimmerman not guilty of any other crimes because the prosecution failed to produce enough evidence to present a beyond a reasonable doubt a crime was committed. Those are NOT the same thing DVC in Florida. I am trying to educate you on this point.

DVC is right here. The jury's end response wasn't "he correctly acted in self defense", it was "the state hasn't cast enough doubt, and since all people are innocent until proven guilty..."

Here's the key:

"you have a reasonable doubt on the question of whether George Zimmerman was justified in the use of deadly force"

 

[Pens1566]

He doesn't know Florida law in this instance correctly. He may know law, but he is incorrect on this point. I am explaining why he is wrong, because what he stated earlier was improper information. I have a problem when someone with his perceived level of expertise by the public gets improper information.

And stop using the logic fallacy again of argument by authority. Just because he is a lawyer doesn't make him automatically defacto right in any debate over laws and legal proceedings. If that was the case, no lawyer would ever lose a case. But I have a point for you, with every case that goes to trial a lawyer team wins and a lawyer team loses.

Does that include civil prosecutors?

 

[Joe_u]

Does that include civil prosecutors?

Civil prosecutors?

 

[HumblePie]

Civil prosecutors?

Stupid argument which someone arguing against me doesn't want to concede. I was using the technical definition of what a prosecutor is. Which is both historically accurate and used in other countries. It is also on black's law dictionary. It is not how law is currently "practiced" in the US when it comes to criminal charges. The current legal monikor of a prosecutor mainly applies now in the US to those attorney's working for the government bring criminal charges to someone. That wasn't always the case and isn't the case in various parts of the world.

It was an argument in semantics. It was only an argument because I was going to use it to further prove another point, but since someone couldn't beyond the technical definition of the word I found it pointless to continue.

 

[Pens1566]

Civil prosecutors?

It was yet another instance of Humble trying to "correct" DVC on all things legal. He read a book once apparently. It's kind of a long running joke at this point.

 

[HomerJS]

Now that GZ has been disarmed by the courts it would be cool if black people in hoodies started following him everywhere he goes just like ghosts.

Nothing illegal about it!

 

[Joe_u]

Stupid argument which someone arguing against me doesn't want to concede. I was using the technical definition of what a prosecutor is. Which is both historically accurate and used in other countries. It is also on black's law dictionary. It is not how law is currently "practiced" in the US when it comes to criminal charges. The current legal monikor of a prosecutor mainly applies now in the US to those attorney's working for the government bring criminal charges to someone. That wasn't always the case and isn't the case in various parts of the world.

It was an argument in semantics. It was only an argument because I was going to use it to further prove another point, but since someone couldn't beyond the technical definition of the word I found it pointless to continue.

I just read the thread on it. Shouldn't you be the one conceding?

You were just very very wrong. And in being so wrong on something so trite you evinced a lack of legal understanding.

Understanding what a prosecutor/lawyer is and does is key to the understating of the adversarial system which is our legal system and criminal law system.

 

[Druidx]

LOL, according to the guy who never admitted he was wrong.

 

[Joe_u]

LOL, according to the guy who never admitted he was wrong.

Lol. The troll returns. The online bully himself. You even have Geo scared to correct you. Lol your mom must be so proud of you.

Refresh me on what I was wrong about again?

 

[HumblePie]

I just read the thread on it. Shouldn't you be the one conceding?

You were just very very wrong. And in being so wrong on something so trite you evinced a lack of legal understanding.

Understanding what a prosecutor/lawyer is and does is key to the understating of the adversarial system which is our legal system and criminal law system.

No, because I cited several sources for my claim. He incorrectly cites one which a quick online view of his citation shows what he claimed was wrong for the definition. Again, it was an argument of a definition of a word and in semantics. How should I be the one to concede the loss when I all the sources I provided backed up the definition I used?

 

[Joe_u]

No, because I cited several sources for my claim. He incorrectly cites one which a quick online view of his citation shows what he claimed was wrong for the definition. Again, it was an argument of a definition of a word and in semantics. How should I be the one to concede the loss when I all the sources I provided backed up the definition I used?

It wasn't merely an argument about a definition. If you go back and read through it and you are honest with yourself, you would agree it sounded like you didn't understand what a prosecutor was. There is no issue being wrong, but not admitting g it and moving on....

 

[HumblePie]

It wasn't merely an argument about a definition. If you go back and read through it and you are honest with yourself, you would agree it sounded like you didn't understand what a prosecutor was. There is no issue being wrong, but not admitting g it and moving on....

A prosecutor based upon definition both historical and in current context is one that prosecute. Period. At one point even in US history a person had to hire an attorney as a private prosecutor to do criminal prosecutions. It wasn't solely a government controlled position as we currently have it. It still is that way in other parts of the world. The argument was leading up to another point I was trying to make at the time, but never got there because someone couldn't get beyond the common US use of the moniker prosecutor and its common application in many people's vernacular. That calling an attorney a prosecutor in a civil case was not only at one point a more common term in this country, it is still technically still the definition of the term. I cited many sources for that. Since no headway was made on converting someone that doesn't want to understand a basic definition of a term, there was no point in continuing the argument.

 

[fskimospy]

A prosecutor based upon definition both historical and in current context is one that prosecute. Period. At one point even in US history a person had to hire an attorney as a private prosecutor to do criminal prosecutions. It wasn't solely a government controlled position as we currently have it. It still is that way in other parts of the world. The argument was leading up to another point I was trying to make at the time, but never got there because someone couldn't get beyond the common US use of the moniker prosecutor and its common application in many people's vernacular. That calling an attorney a prosecutor in a civil case was not only at one point a more common term in this country, it is still technically still the definition of the term. I cited many sources for that. Since no headway was made on converting someone that doesn't want to understand a basic definition of a term, there was no point in continuing the argument.

It's okay to admit you're wrong sometimes.

 

[Druidx]

Lol. The troll returns. The online bully himself. You even have Geo scared to correct you. Lol your mom must be so proud of you.

Refresh me on what I was wrong about again?

It's already been explained to you, not my fault if you didn't understand. The same way it's not my fault you screwed up multiple post but that didn’t stop you from whining about it as though I was to blame.

So once again, please try and keep up.
You: What happened with Shellie and the girlfriend shows a pattern of behavior
Me: There are several inconsistences between Shellie’s account and the girlfriend’s

You: No there is not
Me: For example Shellie says GZ broke the ipad with a knife while the girlfriend says he broke it over his knee, didn’t say anything about a knife.

You: But there is video evidence GZ broke it open with a knife
Me: Okay, so there is video evidence that the girlfriend is wrong

You: No it proves she is telling the truth
Me: You just said the video proves he used a knife while GF claims he broke it over his knee.

You: So she was right
Me: No. that means there is an inconsistency between their two stories just like I said.

You: No the video proves you are wrong.
Me: You keep saying that when it doesn’t match what she said happen, what do you not understand?

You: messed up reply that is unreadable
You: another unreadable reply
Me: I think you messed up your last two post

You: Yes I messed up my last two post but you are an online bully to say that, I hate you
Me:

If you have any other questions, I'm here to help.

 

[HumblePie]

It's okay to admit you're wrong sometimes.

Present evidence that shows that definition is wrong and I'll admit I'm wrong on that. Something that wasn't done beyond the claim of one person and those with their heads shoved up his ass.

Dispute that definition of that word if you can. I used dictionaries, law books, and historical context for that word. I will be highly surprised if you can present enough evidence to dispute that definition. If the current context of the argument had been on to state, well that may be the actual definition but current vernacular is... That would have been a completely different argument and one that would be correct.

 

[fskimospy]

Present evidence that shows that definition is wrong and I'll admit I'm wrong on that. Something that wasn't done beyond the claim of one person and those with their heads shoved up his ass.

Dispute that definition of that word if you can. I used dictionaries, law books, and historical context for that word. I will be highly surprised if you can present enough evidence to dispute that definition. If the current context of the argument had been on to state, well that may be the actual definition but current vernacular is... That would have been a completely different argument and one that would be correct.

Just go back and read the thread, it's already been presented to you. In this thread you're clearly wrong as well. You need to learn when to quit.

 

[Joe_u]

It's already been explained to you, not my fault if you didn't understand. The same way it's not my fault you screwed up multiple post but that didn’t stop you from whining about it as though I was to blame.

So once again, please try and keep up.
You: What happened with Shellie and the girlfriend shows a pattern of behavior
Me: There are several inconsistences between Shellie’s account and the girlfriend’s

You: No there is not
Me: For example Shellie says GZ broke the ipad with a knife while the girlfriend says he broke it over his knee, didn’t say anything about a knife.

You: But there is video evidence GZ broke it open with a knife
Me: Okay, so there is video evidence that the girlfriend is wrong

You: No it proves she is telling the truth
Me: You just said the video proves he used a knife while GF claims he broke it over his knee.

You: So she was right
Me: No. that means there is an inconsistency between their two stories just like I said.

You: No the video proves you are wrong.
Me: You keep saying that when it doesn’t match what she said happen, what do you not understand?

You: messed up reply that is unreadable
You: another unreadable reply
Me: I think you messed up your last two post

You: Yes I messed up my last two post but you are an online bully to say that, I hate you
Me:

If you have any other questions, I'm here to help.

Im tired of this. I'll do this in two parts and then I'll put you ignore.

Part 1.) You tried to claim Shellie changed her story and that GZ didn't have a gun that night.

Okay dummy since you asked. You claimed Shellie never changed her story. In the police call she said he was threatning her with his hand on his gun. Later when she was interviewed by police she admitted she never saw a gun and it turns out he didn't even have it on him at the time. Sucks to be you you, maybe you should take off the race blinders you were talking about. Sadly for TM he attacked a cracka who happen to be armed.

His attorney Mark Omara per the Orlando Sentinel

"I think everybody got out of hand. There was touching, pushing," O'Mara said. It was a case of emotions boiling over, he said. O'Mara also said his client didn't threaten anyone with his gun: "The gun was holstered under his shirt, and it stayed there the whole time."

Now, his girlfriend at the time

FIGHT WITH SHELLIE

George's televised fight with his estranged wife Shellie happened on Sept. 9, 2013, at a home they had rented from her mother, Machelle Dean.

Scheibe says she and Zimmerman had spent the morning at Kel Tec, a gun manufacturer in Cocoa. On their way back to the Orlando area, Scheibe says Zimmerman accessed the home surveillance cameras at the Lake Mary home belonging to her mother using an app on his phone. She says he saw Shellie was moving her things out, but she says she also say him moving things that belonged to him.

That's when they drove to the house, and the fight escalated, Scheibe said.

Scheibe says she watched as Shellie hit George over the head repeatedly with her iPad. That's when she said George took the iPad away from her, broke it over his knee and threw it to the ground.

Scheibe claims George did have a gun on him that day, and it wasn't in the trunk of his car.

Scheibe refused to give police a statement that day, as reflected in the police report obtained by Local

So, will you admit you were wrong or is Shellie as well as his attorney and ex-gf all lying that he had a gun?

 

[Druidx]

Wow, I'm impressed, you still have it wrong. I pointed out the discrepancies between their two stories of what happened.
Shellie says he broke the ipad open with a knife
Scheibe says he broke it over his knee
Two different stories about one simple thing ( the Ipad ) but you reply back about the gun. Which by the way Shellie did change her story on. She said he threatened her with his hand on his gun on the 911 call. Later admits during the police interview she never saw a gun, plus when the police arrived GZ was not armed.

Sucks to be you

LOL that you use a quote from MOM who wasn't there while ignoring the police who frisked him. Just shows how desperate you are.