Justice for Zimmerman

mkopec_sl said:

^^ REPORTED!

Click to expand...

dont take it up the booty damn Wakandan

Didn't take long.

In Texas at least (not sure about other states),people have different ideas about what this actually means but most agree it's not illegal to tell someone (or motion) you have weapon to imply a threat and difuse a situation. That would not be considered deadly force. Other states have "brandishing" laws that might apply to telling someone you have a weapon though.

PC ?9.04. THREATS AS JUSTIFIABLE FORCE. The threat of force is justified when the use of force is justified by this chapter. For purposes of this section, a threat to cause death or serious bodily injury by the production of a weapon or otherwise, as long as the actor's purpose is limited to creating an apprehension that he will use deadly force if necessary, does not constitute the use of deadly force.

Click to expand...

Legitimate question, with all these people threatening Zimmerman - if he goes free do the jurors need to fear for their lives as well? What kind of protection do you get?

Noodleface_sl said:

Legitimate question, with all these people threatening Zimmerman - if he goes free do the jurors need to fear for their lives as well? What kind of protection do you get?

Click to expand...

CNN will post all of their SS #s and tell everyone they were racists.

What's the latest that the jury can announce their findings today? I need to be prepared to watch tv for riot viewing.

Burnesto_sl said:

What's the latest that the jury can announce their findings today? I need to be prepared to watch tv for riot viewing.

Click to expand...

6pm EST, I think.

Zodiac_sl said:

In Texas at least (not sure about other states),people have different ideas about what this actually means but most agree it's not illegal to tell someone (or motion) you have weapon to imply a threat and difuse a situation. That would not be considered deadly force. Other states have "brandishing" laws that might apply to telling someone you have a weapon though.

Click to expand...

Meh, I'm mostly on board with Texas when it comes to self defense and gun laws, but I don't agree with this at all. Saying you have a gun is more likely to escalate a situation not diffuse it.

Damn Breaking News was a tease on CNN. Jury has a question, not a verdict.

Noodleface_sl said:

Legitimate question, with all these people threatening Zimmerman - if he goes free do the jurors need to fear for their lives as well? What kind of protection do you get?

Click to expand...

Their identities will probably be shielded. Second, its almost certain he will not go free - with the layering of charges, he will most likely be found not guilty of murder and found guilty of manslaughter (lesser charge), as the jury will probably have 3-5 who want to vote guilty of murder and 1-2 who refuse and threaten a hung jury. The jury will compromise and agree to unanimously convict on manslaughter and find him free on murder. We won't see a verdict today though as it takes at least 8-12 hours for them sitting and stewing before they start compromising with each other.

The evidence is still very poor for the manslaughter charge however, and it will be appealed. It will take 3-6 months for that to go through, the appeal will succeed, and the prosecution will just quietly drop the case. So in the end Zimmerman will go free and get rich from the books, TV shows, etc. The jurors will get rich for writing "inside stories" (only the first one or two), and there won't be a chimpout since dumb people will see his initial (eventually overturned) conviction as victory.

There is just nothing sexy about pragmatism.

The jury having a question, even if it's just for a list of evidence exhibits, is pretty terrible news for Zimmerman imo. My money is on one of those bullshit shotgunned lesser charges sticking until the appeal.

Gavinrad_sl said:

Meh, I'm mostly on board with Texas when it comes to self defense and gun laws, but I don't agree with this at all. Saying you have a gun is more likely to escalate a situation not diffuse it.

Click to expand...

Not really. I can think of a bunch of situations were this is completely correct. Take people trespassing on your farm, ranch, or homestead. Hey, I have a gun, and am fully within my right to use it...Or someone trying to break in your door. I will shoot if you come through that door. The alternative is what everyone thinks Texans do, which is shoot first and talk later.

Being on your own property is completely different. The context was announcing you have a gun when you're carrying concealed.

Gavinrad_sl said:

Being on your own property is completely different. The context was announcing you have a gun when you're carrying concealed.

Click to expand...

Car accident. Road-rage dude comes at you. Come one step closer and I will shoot you. Again, alternative would be to shoot first and talk later.

Let me clarify a bit before we start arguing over nothing. The threat of deadly force can deescalate a situation as well as escalate it. It takes common sense, and most gun owners know you don't pull out your weapon unless you feel you have no other choice.

Jurors asking for inventory list. Sounds to me they are taking this job serious and it wont be over in any type of hurry.