Who can he sue?
I don't know if it can be considered a racial slur considering its origination. But it is offensive in the way it is being used today.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cracker_(pejorative)
I love BS' commentary. He thinks John was a better witness for the state, because he said that it looked like the person on the bottom could have gotten up which wipes out the self-defense angle. He thinks the only way the defense can overcome this is by having GZ testify. Don't have a link, so JMO.
BTW-- when are the videos of GZs interviews with LE gonna come in?
The testimony from the last witness does not match the injuries on Trayvon Martin. Period. There is NO WAY you beat someone "MMA Style" and you have ZERO wounds on your hands, especially your dominate hand, especially IF Trayvon was on top like this witness said.
"murdered"?
Politically bypassing the Grand Jury, Special Prosecutor Angela Corey has charged GZ with Second Degree Murder.
The crime of Second Degree Murder (in Florida) occurs when a person commits either:
- Murder with a Depraved Mind or
- Accomplice Felony Murder
Murder with a Depraved Mind
Murder with a Depraved Mind occurs when a person is killed, without any premeditated design, by an act imminently dangerous to another and evincing a depraved mind showing no regard for human life.
The primary distinction between Premeditated First Degree Murder and Second Degree Murder with a Depraved Mind is that First Degree Murder requires a specific and premeditated intent to kill.
Accomplice Felony Murder
Accomplice Felony Second Degree Murder occurs when you are an accomplice to a person who kills another human being while engaged in the commission, or attempted commission, of the following statutorily enumerated felonies, regardless of whether they intended the death:
- Aggravated abuse of an elderly person or disabled adult,
- Aggravated child abuse,
- Aggravated stalking,
- Aircraft piracy,
- Arson,
- Burglary
- Carjacking,
- Distribution of Controlled Substances
- Escape,
- Home-invasion robbery,
- Kidnapping,
- Murder of another human being,
- Resisting Officer with Violence,
- Robbery,
- Sexual battery,
- Terrorism,
- Trafficking in Controlled Substances, or
- Unlawful throwing, placing, or discharging of a destructive device or bomb.
The State has not alleged Accomplice Felony Murder.
And it cannot prove Murder with a Depraved Mind.
So far, the State seems to be proving a GSW inflicted in order to halt a beating/pummeling.
If the jury gets it, justice will prevail.
It depends on the circumstances. If the reasonable person standard is met that there is peril of death or fear of great bodily harm, one could stand their ground then and there.How long should one flee from an aggressor before it's okay to "stand your ground." And if while you are standing your ground you end up being shot and killed, what is the legal term for that? Curious minds want to know.
I am unfamiliar with BS's history, but watched him today. If he were any more in favor of the state, he would be up there trying the case (IMO).
If GZ was pinned to the ground getting his head bashed in, how does BS think he could get away? Did BS think he wasn't injured enough? How much is enough? Busted nose...check. Bashed in head...check. Maybe if his brain was leaking out of his ears, BS would think it was self defense?
Sorry to get annoyed, the glee BS showed while revealing what he thought was a bombshell just rubbed me the wrong way.
I am still waiting for the ME to testify.
You have one guy on the phone saying he was being followed by a creepy #$%$%... and the other guy on the phone saying he was FOLLOWING a F#&^$& ... One has a bag of Skittles... the other has a loaded gun. Is there evidence I missed that TM approached GZ?
Yet he kept his distance in all the other 9-11 calls.
The best protection of all? Get your butt back into your car.
Visual evidence:
http://.files.wordpress.com/2012/12/gz-original-injuries.jpg?w=640&h=320
Victim of Assault
In the beginning, there was talk of GZ claiming he was 'standing his ground', then it was decided not to claim that. At that time, many legal talkers were suggesting that TM was the one standing his ground. So to say that he had no right to punch a guy who was following him in the dark---
Also, 'cause I truly don't know, if two guys are having a fight in the alley behind a bar, and one of them is getting the worst of it, does that guy have the right to draw a gun and shoot the other one? Seems like if it were legal, it would happen all the time.
I can't disagree with you more, IMO. Their 17 year old son is dead and the investigation was so poor the police didn't call the person he was clearly talking to on his cell phone moments before being shot?!? Should these parents have walked up to GZ, shook his hand and said "Thanks for killing my unarmed son. I'm sorry he caused you injuries so severe you required not one, but two whole bandaids?" :stormingmad:
And for that matter, do you feel CA should be able to sue everyone involved in her case. After all, she was found not guilty?
You can if that person lays a hand on you first! RJ says GZ did almost immediately after answering back TM's question, "why are you following me, for?. After that no one but GZ now knows if he grabbed TM first. TM can't tell us and apparently no live witness can either. So it comes down to whether you believe GZ grabbed at TM.
Please don't forget where TM's phone ended up. Right next to his body! So, JG must have something wrong. His phone went dead, right after RJ lost the ability to hear TM clearly. And, he was shot dead within seconds of her call being dropped. That is indisputable.
It is believed they did not elect to use SYG because it would require a hearing before the trial. Given what we've seen of the judge so far, I can totally agree with their decision. She would have most likely scheduled a trial and the prosecutor would now have the defense's strategy. All the cards would be on the table at that point.In the beginning, there was talk of GZ claiming he was 'standing his ground', then it was decided not to claim that. At that time, many legal talkers were suggesting that TM was the one standing his ground. So to say that he had no right to punch a guy who was following him in the dark---
Also, 'cause I truly don't know, if two guys are having a fight in the alley behind a bar, and one of them is getting the worst of it, does that guy have the right to draw a gun and shoot the other one? Seems like if it were legal, it would happen all the time.
How would they be able to sue him if it turns out that he was acting in self defense?
And I totally believe he was
JMO