JayC

A lot, they can bounce any juror for 'cause', and anything that could hurt the defense is for cause pretty much...  the judge gave the defense great latitude in getting rid of problem jurors because of all of the press coverage.   Also, keep in mind that 5 of the jurors have firearms in their homes, and it only takes 1 of them to hang the jury.  I don't see the state taking a second whack at this case.    

Zimmerman is currently only charged with Murder 2, the judge will decided if the lesser included offenses (and which ones) can also be presented to the jury at the time of jury instruction.  It's not a given that they'll be given manslaughter as an option.    

Anybody else watching the trolling being done via Skype?  Somebody saw the in court skype name, and is calling over and over again interrupting the questioning of a remote witness :)

That document seems to contradict this power point on the PRISM program: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/special/politics/prism-collection-documents/   Which one to believe, the 3 page document the government releases after getting caught with their hand in the cookie jar, or the power point made to explain to people in the Intelligence community how and what they can get from "the most used surveillance program" in the NSA?    

Not sure if anybody is watching today, but it sure seems like things are going well for the defense, and they haven't even started their case yet.

Don't pay for it to be done again, TDOS has already missed the 90 day mark, it should be on them to provide you a location to get fingerprinted without you being charged money.  

The truth is that we need to start cracking down on felony stupid by our public servants, and this is a perfect example of felony stupid....  I'm not sure you could get a conviction...  but we should have a civilian group that can investigate, charge and bring to trial public servants that commit violations under the color of law.  This group needs it's own budget and the ability to act independently from the DA's office, since the DA and the police are often on the same 'team' in criminal matters.   If I were on such a review board, with these facts, I'd push for a kidnapping under the color of law charge, and would push for the maximum penalty under law against these 'agents'.  Would they all get convicted, I'm not sure...  what I do know, these agents would never do something this stupid again...  And if you 'threw' the book at public servants a few times a year, I suspect the number of these felony stupid incidents would drop dramatically.   We give a lot of power to our public servants and with that power we need to hold them to a higher standard of the general public.  They need to be on the hook personally for each and ever action they take.  They need to understand that any civil rights violations they perform will result in not only the loss of their job but the loss of their freedom.  I know it's harsh, but the current results just aren't acceptable so something needs to change.

Sometimes the ignore button is your friend ;)  Some people remind me of this video clip:   http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LlRVxzHUSNc  

I think under florida law the judge will decide what charges are presented to the jury at the time of jury instructions...  So the Judge MAY allow the jury to consider manslaughter and 2nd degree murder, that isn't for sure either way yet...  or at least that is my laypersons understanding.      

I'm just curious, you seem to have a very specific thought on manslaughter, and that doesn't seem to match TN or FL law involving manslaughter...  I'm curious how you came to that thought process.   Seeing as it's clear that Zimmerman didn't violate FL's stalking statute (since stalking in both TN and FL requires more than a single incident), clearly he isn't guilty of stalking under FL law.  Every part of FL law (748.048) requires "repeated" actions...  since nobody claims that GZ had ever seen TM before that night, clearly he wasn't stalking.   There isn't any terrorizing a citizen statues under FL law, maybe you mean terroristic or criminal threats?  The problem is that it doesn't appear even under the most critical reading of the FL statue on criminal threats does this case fit...  Since the threat must be written, verbal, or communications in a electronic form...  I think everybody agrees that didn't happen....  and the threat must be specific in nature and could not be mistaken for anything else.  Again, I just don't see how GZ could be guilty of that crime...   Then you run up against a couple of justification laws...  782.03 - Excusable Homicide - Says that homicides are excused when committed by accident and/or misfortune in doing ANY lawful act by lawful means....      And before you say that he was somehow negligent by getting out of the truck...  Lets look at a Neighborhood Watch handout from a major city...       While this isn't from the Sanford NW manual, it is from a watch manual in a major city...  that recommends only doing foot patrols, and to continue to watch from a safe distance noting all the details you can...  If that is within the 'standard response' range of neighborhood watch programs...  how is leaving one's car to keep an eye on somebody recklessly negligent?   I just don't see how you get to manslaughter under FL.     

What specific act did he commit in your mind that made him have culpable negligence in this case?     

What specific crime do you think he committed?  

Anybody still watching the live feed?  What exactly is this witness (Columbian Blonde) providing evidence wise, by her own admission she didn't even go outside until after the shooting.   The states case seems very weak to me.

Rob,  I didn't mean anything..  I was just pulling your leg from the thread we had going the other day ;)  

So you have no problem with polygamy then?  Because that form of marriage tends to promote the species to propagate.    

Robert while I agree with you completely on this, I'm a little concerned your account has been hacked and taken over by a libertarian :)    

I'm all fine with allowing people their free pursuit of happiness, up until the government forces me violate my freedom of association (or the freedom not to associate with person) because they claim my freedom somehow violates their ability to pursue happiness.    

Need to get the state governments out of it as well....  there is no need for the government to be involved in marriage at all.    

No offense, but there is so much case law you should know better...  The ONE exception to that rule is when you get involved in a fight and the other person escalates the fight by using force that could cause serious bodily injury or death then self defense can come back on the table.   I'd suggest you re-read 39-11-611e1 + e2   A perfect example of this is if you consent to a fist fight, and while you're down on the ground and the person winning goes and gets a baseball bat and attempts to attack you with it...  You're allowed to use deadly force even though you consented to a fist fight.   But again, I contend GZ never committed a crime, never consented to a fist fight, and therefore the stand your ground law was clearly in effect.    

Ok, well staying with TN law to keep things simple...  following somebody in public is NEVER a crime...  The crime of stalking requires multiple separate examples of following a person.  So, again no criminal activity.  And that lack of criminal activity on the part of GZ is what matters in the 'stand your ground law'.   But, lets pretend that GZ somehow caused the fist fight without ever doing anything aggressive or violent but somehow he "provoked" the fist fight...  (I don't concede this point at all, but lets play along)...  There is no evidence or claim that GZ ever presented a threat of serious injury or death to TM...  once TM went from a fist fight to pounding GZ's head into concrete, TM presented a reasonable threat to serious injury or death, and even if GZ had started a fight, the instant the fight escalated to that point, the self defense statute would have kicked in.   But lets not let the facts of the case or the law get in the way of sending a man to prison because he did something legal but probably not the smartest thing.      

It is MY business because you and I live in the same community (generally speaking), and your statist views that you can force me to do whatever you want as long as 50%+1 of the voters agrees directly impacts my liberty and natural rights!   How doesn't your views that using violence and the threat of violence to impose your viewpoint on others not threaten me and my natural rights directly?    

Robert, what you're describing is the EXACT definition of authoritarian!  Some group of people take away some part of your property rights without your consent!  You had the right have uncut grass on your property one day, and the next even though you're totally opposed to it you no longer have that right....   How can you keep saying the community hasn't taken something away?  Hasn't taken a liberty (aka property rights) away?  How?  Your contention is that nothing has been taken, no liberty infringed, isn't logical.   And your entire premise that if I don't like my rights being taken away against my will is to leave my property and move...  that is the definition of tyranny.   Stop hiding and embrace your statist beliefs just say what you really mean...  you want other persons to conform to your vision of what society should do, and you're happy to use violence and the threats of violence to make them do what you want.  At least that argument would be logically valid!    

First you seem to have a misunderstanding of liberty...  Libertarians believe that you elect representatives to govern and make laws based on a limited list of enumerated powers and only those enumerated powers.  That private and civil solutions should always be used instead of the force of government... and only use government solutions when there is no private or civil alternative.   They also believe that the natural rights of a person stand above any form of government, including property rights.     Again you continue to confuse contracts with government force...  Nobody has argued that HOA/deed restrictions violate a person's liberty... only that actions by the government violate property rights unless just compensation is provided to the property owner.    

Laws being passed whether they be from elected representatives, or passed as a ballot item doesn't change the tyranny of the majority.  The government is violating the property rights whenever they pass a law that restricts the owners property rights without providing just compensation.  There is no way to square that circle... you can dress it up in a fancy dress and put makeup on it, but it's still a pig.   Lets pretend that a person is causing you damage by not cutting your grass..  we already have a method to deal with that outside of zoning restrictions...  you just file a lawsuit and prove harm by the landowners negligence and bingo the problem is solved.  Oh wait that would require you to prove actual damages, probably not something you could do over the lack of cut grass huh?   So instead you want to force through the threat of violence that somebody cut their grass because you think it *might* cause you some financial damage some point in the future?  But that isn't a form of tyranny?  Please.    

Robert,   First lets separate two things...  because they are not one and the same....  local laws by a government are different from deed restrictions or a HOA agreements that are part of the contract you enter into when you buy a property.  So don't switch back and forth between the two as if they're the same thing, because they're not.   If you want to buy up a 1,000 acres of land, develop it, and then sell the plots of land to people, and in that contract there are restrictions on what they can or can't do...  I'm perfectly fine with that (within reason and as long as it doesn't violate basic freedoms and the rule against perpetuities).  BTW the enforcement for this type of action is a civil one, not criminal.   Now lets deal with local, county, and state governments...  because they're a different animal entirely...  Our forefathers granted these governments very limited enumerated powers and if they act outside those powers, no matter how much the people want them to, they are a violation of our natural rights...   Both the federal and state constitutions have a taking clause in them that prohibits the GOVERNMENT from taking in part or in whole property from a person without just compensation.  Placing restrictions on a persons property in the form of zoning restrictions is taking away property rights from the owner, without providing just compensation.   BTW, lets run down the rabbit hole of people voted for these measures and therefore they must be legal...  One man can't take away my rights and enslave me, but if 50%+1 do so it's just fine?  That is the classic definition of tyranny of the majority...  You have a natural right to own property that is not unwillingly restricted by the 'government' period...  Our forefathers seeing that some cases may come up where it's in the public interest to place restrictions on property placed a balance on that action by saying you can take/restrict a person's property but government has to pay them just compensation for that taking.   BTW where is this contract I signed when moving into a community to live how they want me to live?  Because I sure don't remember signing that contract giving up all of my natural rights to the whim of the majority of my neighbors...  I'm pretty sure I didn't sign those rights away.