As the sign said… “If the head is split, you must acquit.”
(forget where I saw that)
Sure, and if I was lucky enough to kill him I’d be the only one able to testify as to what happended which is enough to get me off with a broadly applied law.
Why ‘stand your ground’ is never applied to an unarmed man who is followed in the middle of the night is beyond me.
Well, it certainly would be if he weren’t dead! The law is very impartial.
How do you surrender to a guy who is already doing that?
Cite?
This was not a SYG case.
You want a cite for a hypothetical?
True. It was widely speculated though, that she was the one who voted for murder 2, and was the last to agree to acquit (since the first juror interview two days later). I know I wasn’t surprised when she came forward to confirm it.
But this just adds to the confusion: If there was all this speculation about the Hispanic juror being the holdout, how was it simultaneously put forward that the jury was all white?
Possible answer: Maybe her Hispanic label was originally considered white, in the same way Zimmerman was considered white. Once she came forward and revealed herself to the public, her appearance was used to change her designation to non-white.
Do we know how she self identifies?
I think this is as much as we know now (and that she is “Puerto Rican”):
*The only woman of color sworn in as a juror in the George Zimmerman trial Thursday is being identified as juror B-29. Her ethnicity is unclear.
“We understand she is Hispanic,” Attorney Benjamin Crump said Thursday. Defense attorney Mark O’Mara said she was black, but her ethnicity was not on the record. In court, Prosecutor Bernie de la Rionda identified her as “black” but was unsure if she was Hispanic*
Kryptonite?
(Sarcasm, John. Have you had your humor chip calibrated lately?)
It’s the surname of Professor Eugene Volokh, who clerked for O’Connor before joining the faculty of the UCLA School of Law.
That is your mind.
In fact, every citizen is entitled to keep and bear arms: it’s an individual right.
Correct. But how long did my error persist? Did I fail to correct it when presented with contrary evidence?
You mean to tell me its just my opinion? And that there are laws in place that entitle people to keep and bear weapons? No shit?
Thanks for the update. I may have to take a moment to absorb this new and startling information.
A legible set of fingerprints on file and an FBI background check aren’t required to get a driver’s license anywhere. I know they are to get CCW here in AR and I’m pretty sure FL is the same.
Hardly a hypothetical…its a narration of Z’s statements. Without any credible corroboration.
Thus, cite or retract.
It’s a hypothetical. It may be based on the narrative, but it’s a hypothetical.
No cite for a hypothetical.
Wait, I say “hypothetical” and that means I don’t have to prove anything? Shit, I can get some mileage out of that! Hypothetically.
No, I just had my SoH checked, and it’s 100%. I guess that leaves us with the only other explanation-- you once again argued yourself into a corner and cried SARCASM!!
Who’s trying to “prove” something? You threw out a hypothetical and said you would do “x”. I altered the hypothetical, and asked what you’d do under that circumstance. But no matter, you were just being sarcastic…
You many things, John, but stupid isn’t on the list. I find it hard to think you didn’t actually get the thrust of Red’s question. But if you say so, I will believe you.