Five.
Because for the purposes of analysis, calling a tail a leg makes it a leg.
You can wail all you like about the affidavit being flawed, but what Dershowitz and I mean is that it’s facially flawed. You mean something completely different.
Dodgy curries or excessive ass effluence? Fortunately, I have had very little experience with either. How about yourself?
Oooh, oooh. I can cut and paste an answer.
*In legal actions the term matter of law is used to define a particular area that is the responsibility of the court. Matter of law is distinguished from matter of fact. All questions concerning the determination of fact are for the jury, though a judge may determine the facts if a jury trial is waived or is not permitted under the law.
A matter of law can be the basis for an appeal, but generally a matter of fact cannot. Though an appeals court can reverse a decision because of a mistaken matter of law, it will not reverse if the mistake did not affect the verdict. This “harmless error” rule developed, in part, from the recognition that during a trial the court often must make hundreds of decisions based on matters of law*.
The term “as a matter of law” means that which the law/courts are influenced/effected by.
The “affidavit” in question was flawed (could have been written better or with more detail) but not to the extent that it was invalid. It is still considered sufficient to hold GZ for trial.
For what fucking point? It’s not like Z thought Trayvon was still in the area.
If he wasn’t such a retarded twat, he’d have told the police to go to the back entrance and he’d flush his quarry in their direction.
But no, that would have seen the cops get all the glory and Z resigned to a supporting role, and he didn’t want that.
“Because the entire case is bullshit, based on wishful thinking, baseless speculation, and appeals to emotion. Made by tards, like you, and politicians who want tards like you to vote for them.”
–words of wisdom from Steophan
2 minutes after he tells DD he ran to the mailbox he states a guy in a car is following him.
And while your imagination describes him running into the gated area the phone call from Zimmerman states differently. So unless you want to suggest Zimmerman made up the location he first saw Martin in some nefarious plot yet to be determined the phone calls between Zimmerman and Martin agree with his video reenactment.
And yet… this is where “your” mind took you.
TM and GZ met. They asked each other questions according to DD. TM began beating GZ according to GZ. GZ recieved a broken nose and lacerations to his head. GZ’s head was bleeding. TM was on top of GZ. There was a struggle for the firearm. TM was shot in the chest. The fight ended. TM died within feet of where he had been beating GZ.
GZ had notified police that there was a suspicious person in his neighborhood. Police arrived to find GZ broken and bloodied and TM with a gunshot wound. Witnesses reported seeing TM on top of GZ. Cutcher still admits that she didn’t actually see anything. You envision dodgy curry.
Apart from the prosecution’s factual errors (if we’re generous in calling them that) on the affidavit, the “facts” presented do not warrant murder 2 arrest. And if you dismiss the errors, there is nothing else presented that warrants a manslaughter arrest.
So - if you can manage to give me “probable cause” for manslaughter using actual facts and not made-up prosecutorial fantasies like they did in their affidavit - go ahead. Who knows, maybe in your world full of five-legged dogs you will succeed to do so.
And you’re basing this assumption on the evidence available or are you adding a bit of your own curry to muddy the waters? Which witnes will be presenting this version of reality to the jury?
While I agree that Elmer Fudd is a much more accurate caricature of Zimmerman that night, it probably engenders more sympathy for him, not less.
I have another 473 posts on this topic that make no mention of curry, but you home in on that as if it is a clincher?
Well that’s not a logical conclusion. If Z didn’t think Martin was still in the neighborhood there wasn’t much point in sticking around.
What an interesting if not completely batshit crazy thing to suggest he do. Martin isn’t a fox and this isn’t England.
Again with the 4000 mile distant psychic read of Zimmerman’s mind. Well lets look at your thesis on Zimmerman’s mindset. He saw something suspicious, he called the police about it. He avoided direct confrontation when Martin circled his car. He called for help to the surrounding houses.
Sounds like someone who wanted the police to handle it directly, just like it was handled the last time he called. This is what reasonable people do who watch out for their neighbors. They don’t go around assaulting people.
Can you see what Z was seeing by listening to his phone call? No, you can’t.
The defence doesn’t even seem able to provide conclusive evidence he was ever at the clubhouse, despite the place supposedly being covered by cctv where Z claimed he parked. If those cameras were working properly though, you can be sure the prosecution will have pored over the footage to see if Georgie boy was lying through his teeth from the outset.
Means my inferred reasonable belief… otherwise… well, otherwise the world would be just too crazy to exist, man! 
For the millionth time… he DIDN’T see anything suspicious. He saw a young man walking home from the shop, happily chatting to a gf, decided he looked like an “asshole” and that he wasn’t letting this one get away.
That you want to believe that Trayvon was strutting round peeking in house windows and checking door handles, isn’t going to change the facts.
Taking an out of context quote from the BBQ pit and passing it off as if it is from this thread says a lot about your credibility and character.
For anyone that cares the quote is from this post in the BBQ Pit.
There’s many a true word said in drink, in jest and in The Pit.
He has to be in the vicinity in order for Martin to acknowledge someone was following him down that street. Martin’s account fist Zimmerman’s account.
But you don’t have any evidence of that happening. You might as well speculate that Slyvia Brown told the cop that it was Zimmerman using her ESP powers. Since that hasn’t been substantiated, you have no reason to think this happened and so using this line of speculation as a way of denying the existence of probable cause just marks you as a disingenuous poster.
Not only does the witness herself say it happened, but an insider in the PD corroborates that this happened. So I would say on this basis alone you have probable cause to believe the cops had probable cause.
Because in establishing probable cause, self-serving claims from the person with the most to gain from lying should be judged skeptically. Blind acceptance is what incompetent cops do.
Yes I have. I’ve outlined every necessary element for probable cause for unjustified use of force. You’ve outlined nothing except bluster.
Still waiting for you substantiate this. Who contradicted Mary’s claim that she heard a teenager yelling? What was “different” that was negated what she claimed.
Because its a side track that doesn’t change the fact there sufficient reason to believe Zimmerman committed manslaughter that night. The totality points to guilt not innocence.
While true, you* don’t get to air quote them unlinked in an entirely different thread with no acknowledgement that you snipped them from somewhere else.