Proud Tiger 4,261 Posted July 17, 2013 Share Posted July 17, 2013 Wow....81 pages now. Several people have spent a heck of a lot of time in lengthy discussions that haven't changed anyone's opinion or the outcome of the trial. Amazing.......but as they say, whatever cranks your tractor. I'm ready for some FB. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AUGradinTX 0 Posted July 17, 2013 Share Posted July 17, 2013 Juror 37 clearly didn't even have an understanding as to what she was issuing a verdict on in addition to important legal terms as she stated. She was discussing SYG..not a defense arguement that was presented. Your statements are assumptions just like my opinions. There was never any evidence to show 1). Who was screaming and 2) Who started the fight. Your assumptions are that since GZ had some minor injuries that TM started the fight but how is it not possible that GZ couldn't have started it and got his azz beat in the process? Bottom line is we don't know and the jury didn't either so their decision wasn't based on if GZ was telling the truth it was based on not enough evidence. Not guilty is not the same as innocent. No one saw the altercation from start to finish; only bits and pieces. I'm sorry if can't understand my short had phone texting; maybe you can get a teenager to break it down for you. You and TT can spin all you want if it makes you feel good. It's quite amusing. The only points i've ever made pertain to seeing things from a different point of view that related to the evidence that certainly could've occurred that was simply ignored for whatever reason. Nobody is spinning anything. It's deductive logic. There was evidence. Yes, it was circumstantial, but when you have three or four pieces of circumstantial evidence it then becomes corroborating evidence that supports one inference over the other. There was no circumstantial evidence suggesting it was TM's voice on the recording. There was circumstantial evidence suggesting either could have started the fight. I just believe there was more supporting GZ's claim. Key word: circumstantial which means not direct evidence to come to a conclusion that clearly tells the story which is why the verdict was not guilty. Again "your" belief..doesn't mean it's actual truth just like what i believe what i do but nothing to support which version is the actual truth. I respect everyone's point of view that's unpopular point but i based nothing off what i "feel" but rather how i saw the trial and interpreted the evidence not feelings. No, it doesn't mean it is 100% the truth. You're fault is that you keep saying there is no evidence to support what I believe to be the truth. There is. You need to take a deep breath and realize that even though the evidence that supports what I believe is corroborative, there is NONE, ZERO, ZIP that supports what you believe. Hence the "not guilty" verdict. You can knock on my circumstantial and corroborative evidence all you'd like. But when it comes down to it, my circumstantial/corroborative evidence is more than you've got. All you have is far-sighted speculation with nothing to back it up except "it could have happened." A lot of things could have happened. Luckily for us, wild speculation doesn't mean squat in a courtroom. Evidence does. But there wasn't any evidence to support who attacked who first thus proof or dis proof self defense. GZ's injuries alone is not evidence he was hit first. lol. You backed up key parts of GZ's story. I have not even stated what i think happened. I''ve only questioned certain elements of your theory that didn't have any evidence from trial to support it. I've always stated we have no indication who started the fight. lol. Sounds like you're the one that needs to take a deep breath. You're certainly within your right to believe as you please but to say there was clear evidence to support the theory you gave is false. There is a difference between not guilty and being innocent and that's my point. Casey Anthony was found not guilty but doesn't mean she's innocent. I should have listened to my gut instict about discussing this with you. You are questioning my theory that is supported by evidence. I'm questioning the alternative. There were only two people who could have started the fight and there are only two people who's voice could be on that recording. I've stated the evidence to support my stance. Either state yours or GTFO with it. Period. As much as Homer frustrates me with his opinions, at least he can support what he believes. You, on the other hand, have NOTHING to support what you believe. GZ's story didn't have to be true in order from him to be found not guilty it simply means the burden of proof wasn't met not that GZ's version of the story was true. Everything i've addressed has been backed by testimony and evidence. You might need to re-read as i've never given my theory as to what happened nor did i say i agreed with everything the prosecution proposed. Make sure you know someone's stance before accusing them of not providing facts. My point exactly. The Jury didn't have the luxury of staying undecided and playing the critic. They had to reach a verdict based on the EVIDENCE that was shown and they rulled like they did because the alternative (your stance) is supported by ZERO evidence. We can just agree to disagree and move on not respond to one another b/c you clearly need a drink. You've clearly avoided several questions i've raised which went unanswered that don't support the comments, so called evidence and assumptions you've made. Have a nice day though. I had that drink. So, I'm the one avoiding YOUR questions, eh? Funny. I've asked you several times to support your assertion. You haven't. With that said, it's pointless to even discuss it with you any further. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WarEagle1983 2,185 Posted July 17, 2013 Share Posted July 17, 2013 Juror 37 clearly didn't even have an understanding as to what she was issuing a verdict on in addition to important legal terms as she stated. She was discussing SYG..not a defense arguement that was presented. Your statements are assumptions just like my opinions. There was never any evidence to show 1). Who was screaming and 2) Who started the fight. Your assumptions are that since GZ had some minor injuries that TM started the fight but how is it not possible that GZ couldn't have started it and got his azz beat in the process? Bottom line is we don't know and the jury didn't either so their decision wasn't based on if GZ was telling the truth it was based on not enough evidence. Not guilty is not the same as innocent. No one saw the altercation from start to finish; only bits and pieces. I'm sorry if can't understand my short had phone texting; maybe you can get a teenager to break it down for you. You and TT can spin all you want if it makes you feel good. It's quite amusing. The only points i've ever made pertain to seeing things from a different point of view that related to the evidence that certainly could've occurred that was simply ignored for whatever reason. Nobody is spinning anything. It's deductive logic. There was evidence. Yes, it was circumstantial, but when you have three or four pieces of circumstantial evidence it then becomes corroborating evidence that supports one inference over the other. There was no circumstantial evidence suggesting it was TM's voice on the recording. There was circumstantial evidence suggesting either could have started the fight. I just believe there was more supporting GZ's claim. Key word: circumstantial which means not direct evidence to come to a conclusion that clearly tells the story which is why the verdict was not guilty. Again "your" belief..doesn't mean it's actual truth just like what i believe what i do but nothing to support which version is the actual truth. I respect everyone's point of view that's unpopular point but i based nothing off what i "feel" but rather how i saw the trial and interpreted the evidence not feelings. No, it doesn't mean it is 100% the truth. You're fault is that you keep saying there is no evidence to support what I believe to be the truth. There is. You need to take a deep breath and realize that even though the evidence that supports what I believe is corroborative, there is NONE, ZERO, ZIP that supports what you believe. Hence the "not guilty" verdict. You can knock on my circumstantial and corroborative evidence all you'd like. But when it comes down to it, my circumstantial/corroborative evidence is more than you've got. All you have is far-sighted speculation with nothing to back it up except "it could have happened." A lot of things could have happened. Luckily for us, wild speculation doesn't mean squat in a courtroom. Evidence does. But there wasn't any evidence to support who attacked who first thus proof or dis proof self defense. GZ's injuries alone is not evidence he was hit first. lol. You backed up key parts of GZ's story. I have not even stated what i think happened. I''ve only questioned certain elements of your theory that didn't have any evidence from trial to support it. I've always stated we have no indication who started the fight. lol. Sounds like you're the one that needs to take a deep breath. You're certainly within your right to believe as you please but to say there was clear evidence to support the theory you gave is false. There is a difference between not guilty and being innocent and that's my point. Casey Anthony was found not guilty but doesn't mean she's innocent. I should have listened to my gut instict about discussing this with you. You are questioning my theory that is supported by evidence. I'm questioning the alternative. There were only two people who could have started the fight and there are only two people who's voice could be on that recording. I've stated the evidence to support my stance. Either state yours or GTFO with it. Period. As much as Homer frustrates me with his opinions, at least he can support what he believes. You, on the other hand, have NOTHING to support what you believe. GZ's story didn't have to be true in order from him to be found not guilty it simply means the burden of proof wasn't met not that GZ's version of the story was true. Everything i've addressed has been backed by testimony and evidence. You might need to re-read as i've never given my theory as to what happened nor did i say i agreed with everything the prosecution proposed. Make sure you know someone's stance before accusing them of not providing facts. My point exactly. The Jury didn't have the luxury of staying undecided and playing the critic. They had to reach a verdict based on the EVIDENCE that was shown and they rulled like they did because the alternative (your stance) is supported by ZERO evidence. We can just agree to disagree and move on not respond to one another b/c you clearly need a drink. You've clearly avoided several questions i've raised which went unanswered that don't support the comments, so called evidence and assumptions you've made. Have a nice day though. I had that drink. So, I'm the one avoiding YOUR questions, eh? Funny. I've asked you several times to support your assertion. You haven't. With that said, it's pointless to even discuss it with you any further. Best thing i've heard all day. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tgr4lfe 220 Posted July 17, 2013 Share Posted July 17, 2013 Juror 37 clearly didn't even have an understanding as to what she was issuing a verdict on in addition to important legal terms as she stated. She was discussing SYG..not a defense arguement that was presented. Your statements are assumptions just like my opinions. There was never any evidence to show 1). Who was screaming and 2) Who started the fight. Your assumptions are that since GZ had some minor injuries that TM started the fight but how is it not possible that GZ couldn't have started it and got his azz beat in the process? Bottom line is we don't know and the jury didn't either so their decision wasn't based on if GZ was telling the truth it was based on not enough evidence. Not guilty is not the same as innocent. No one saw the altercation from start to finish; only bits and pieces. I'm sorry if can't understand my short had phone texting; maybe you can get a teenager to break it down for you. You and TT can spin all you want if it makes you feel good. It's quite amusing. The only points i've ever made pertain to seeing things from a different point of view that related to the evidence that certainly could've occurred that was simply ignored for whatever reason. Nobody is spinning anything. It's deductive logic. There was evidence. Yes, it was circumstantial, but when you have three or four pieces of circumstantial evidence it then becomes corroborating evidence that supports one inference over the other. There was no circumstantial evidence suggesting it was TM's voice on the recording. There was circumstantial evidence suggesting either could have started the fight. I just believe there was more supporting GZ's claim. Key word: circumstantial which means not direct evidence to come to a conclusion that clearly tells the story which is why the verdict was not guilty. Again "your" belief..doesn't mean it's actual truth just like what i believe what i do but nothing to support which version is the actual truth. I respect everyone's point of view that's unpopular point but i based nothing off what i "feel" but rather how i saw the trial and interpreted the evidence not feelings. No, it doesn't mean it is 100% the truth. You're fault is that you keep saying there is no evidence to support what I believe to be the truth. There is. You need to take a deep breath and realize that even though the evidence that supports what I believe is corroborative, there is NONE, ZERO, ZIP that supports what you believe. Hence the "not guilty" verdict. You can knock on my circumstantial and corroborative evidence all you'd like. But when it comes down to it, my circumstantial/corroborative evidence is more than you've got. All you have is far-sighted speculation with nothing to back it up except "it could have happened." A lot of things could have happened. Luckily for us, wild speculation doesn't mean squat in a courtroom. Evidence does. But there wasn't any evidence to support who attacked who first thus proof or dis proof self defense. GZ's injuries alone is not evidence he was hit first. lol. You backed up key parts of GZ's story. I have not even stated what i think happened. I''ve only questioned certain elements of your theory that didn't have any evidence from trial to support it. I've always stated we have no indication who started the fight. lol. Sounds like you're the one that needs to take a deep breath. You're certainly within your right to believe as you please but to say there was clear evidence to support the theory you gave is false. There is a difference between not guilty and being innocent and that's my point. Casey Anthony was found not guilty but doesn't mean she's innocent. GZ's story didn't have to be true in order from him to be found not guilty it simply means the burden of proof wasn't met not that GZ's version of the story was true. Everything i've addressed has been backed by testimony and evidence. You might need to re-read as i've never given my theory as to what happened nor did i say i agreed with everything the prosecution proposed. Make sure you know someone's stance before accusing them of not providing facts. The physical injury evidence showed TM to be the primary aggressor based on TM's knuckles and GZ's head injuries. I believe based on the evidence from 911 tapes and TM's call to the girl, and that TM circled back on GZ and hid, that is pretty good circumstantial evidence to point toward TM as the primary aggressor also. His injuries showed he got beat up...not who started the fight thus GZ could've been the aggressor who just go beat up in the process. We don't know who hit who first. A person can't start a fight and just b/c they are losing...pull a gun. Again we don't know who hit who first and that's what hurt the state's case but there were events leading up to the fight that do show GZ as the aggressor and his numerous lies. It is what it is but bottom line is don't bring a gun to fist fight and if a person is that scared as GZ claimed...stay your butt in the car or go to a safe place and let the police handle the situation like they are paid to do. Depending on the state law, from what I've seen with FL self defense law: The 2012 Florida Statutes Title XLVI CRIMES Chapter 776 JUSTIFIABLE USE OF FORCE View Entire Chapter 776.013 Home protection; use of deadly force; presumption of fear of death or great bodily harm.— (1) A person is presumed to have held a reasonable fear of imminent peril of death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another when using defensive force that is intended or likely to cause death or great bodily harm to another if: (a) The person against whom the defensive force was used was in the process of unlawfully and forcefully entering, or had unlawfully and forcibly entered, a dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle, or if that person had removed or was attempting to remove another against that person’s will from the dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle; and ( The person who uses defensive force knew or had reason to believe that an unlawful and forcible entry or unlawful and forcible act was occurring or had occurred. (2) The presumption set forth in subsection (1) does not apply if: (a) The person against whom the defensive force is used has the right to be in or is a lawful resident of the dwelling, residence, or vehicle, such as an owner, lessee, or titleholder, and there is not an injunction for protection from domestic violence or a written pretrial supervision order of no contact against that person; or ( The person or persons sought to be removed is a child or grandchild, or is otherwise in the lawful custody or under the lawful guardianship of, the person against whom the defensive force is used; or © The person who uses defensive force is engaged in an unlawful activity or is using the dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle to further an unlawful activity; or (d) The person against whom the defensive force is used is a law enforcement officer, as defined in s. 943.10(14), who enters or attempts to enter a dwelling, residence, or vehicle in the performance of his or her official duties and the officer identified himself or herself in accordance with any applicable law or the person using force knew or reasonably should have known that the person entering or attempting to enter was a law enforcement officer. (3) A person who is not engaged in an unlawful activity and who is attacked in any other place where he or she has a right to be has no duty to retreat and has the right to stand his or her ground and meet force with force, including deadly force if he or she reasonably believes it is necessary to do so to prevent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the commission of a forcible felony. (4) A person who unlawfully and by force enters or attempts to enter a person’s dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle is presumed to be doing so with the intent to commit an unlawful act involving force or violence. (5) As used in this section, the term: (a) “Dwelling” means a building or conveyance of any kind, including any attached porch, whether the building or conveyance is temporary or permanent, mobile or immobile, which has a roof over it, including a tent, and is designed to be occupied by people lodging therein at night. ( “Residence” means a dwelling in which a person resides either temporarily or permanently or is visiting as an invited guest. © “Vehicle” means a conveyance of any kind, whether or not motorized, which is designed to transport people or property. History.—s. 1, ch. 2005-27. http://www.leg.state.fl.us/statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&Search_String&URL=0700-0799/0776/Sections/0776.013.html There is no specific wording as to who starts the fight, whereas in TN law there is specific verbiage about who starts and how that affects the instigator's stand to claim self defense. So, in this case, based on FL law, it does NOT matter who started it, once GZ felt he a reasonable fear of imminent peril of death or great bodily harm to himself then he was justified in using force up to deadly force. Granted things could and probably should have been done differently, but b/c of his role in the NW and recent burglaries, he felt it necessary to try to get location and direction of travel to communicate to the dispatcher at which point TM decided to make bad choices and circle back and lie in wait for GZ to approach him. Anybody seen the autopsy and toxicology report?? I've heard that there might have been signs of DXM in his system or signs of liver damage from use of it. DXM is where people mix dextromethorphan (DXM) cough syrup with an Arizona tea and skittles. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WarEagle1983 2,185 Posted July 17, 2013 Share Posted July 17, 2013 Juror 37 clearly didn't even have an understanding as to what she was issuing a verdict on in addition to important legal terms as she stated. She was discussing SYG..not a defense arguement that was presented. Your statements are assumptions just like my opinions. There was never any evidence to show 1). Who was screaming and 2) Who started the fight. Your assumptions are that since GZ had some minor injuries that TM started the fight but how is it not possible that GZ couldn't have started it and got his azz beat in the process? Bottom line is we don't know and the jury didn't either so their decision wasn't based on if GZ was telling the truth it was based on not enough evidence. Not guilty is not the same as innocent. No one saw the altercation from start to finish; only bits and pieces. I'm sorry if can't understand my short had phone texting; maybe you can get a teenager to break it down for you. You and TT can spin all you want if it makes you feel good. It's quite amusing. The only points i've ever made pertain to seeing things from a different point of view that related to the evidence that certainly could've occurred that was simply ignored for whatever reason. Nobody is spinning anything. It's deductive logic. There was evidence. Yes, it was circumstantial, but when you have three or four pieces of circumstantial evidence it then becomes corroborating evidence that supports one inference over the other. There was no circumstantial evidence suggesting it was TM's voice on the recording. There was circumstantial evidence suggesting either could have started the fight. I just believe there was more supporting GZ's claim. Key word: circumstantial which means not direct evidence to come to a conclusion that clearly tells the story which is why the verdict was not guilty. Again "your" belief..doesn't mean it's actual truth just like what i believe what i do but nothing to support which version is the actual truth. I respect everyone's point of view that's unpopular point but i based nothing off what i "feel" but rather how i saw the trial and interpreted the evidence not feelings. No, it doesn't mean it is 100% the truth. You're fault is that you keep saying there is no evidence to support what I believe to be the truth. There is. You need to take a deep breath and realize that even though the evidence that supports what I believe is corroborative, there is NONE, ZERO, ZIP that supports what you believe. Hence the "not guilty" verdict. You can knock on my circumstantial and corroborative evidence all you'd like. But when it comes down to it, my circumstantial/corroborative evidence is more than you've got. All you have is far-sighted speculation with nothing to back it up except "it could have happened." A lot of things could have happened. Luckily for us, wild speculation doesn't mean squat in a courtroom. Evidence does. But there wasn't any evidence to support who attacked who first thus proof or dis proof self defense. GZ's injuries alone is not evidence he was hit first. lol. You backed up key parts of GZ's story. I have not even stated what i think happened. I''ve only questioned certain elements of your theory that didn't have any evidence from trial to support it. I've always stated we have no indication who started the fight. lol. Sounds like you're the one that needs to take a deep breath. You're certainly within your right to believe as you please but to say there was clear evidence to support the theory you gave is false. There is a difference between not guilty and being innocent and that's my point. Casey Anthony was found not guilty but doesn't mean she's innocent. GZ's story didn't have to be true in order from him to be found not guilty it simply means the burden of proof wasn't met not that GZ's version of the story was true. Everything i've addressed has been backed by testimony and evidence. You might need to re-read as i've never given my theory as to what happened nor did i say i agreed with everything the prosecution proposed. Make sure you know someone's stance before accusing them of not providing facts. The physical injury evidence showed TM to be the primary aggressor based on TM's knuckles and GZ's head injuries. I believe based on the evidence from 911 tapes and TM's call to the girl, and that TM circled back on GZ and hid, that is pretty good circumstantial evidence to point toward TM as the primary aggressor also. His injuries showed he got beat up...not who started the fight thus GZ could've been the aggressor who just go beat up in the process. We don't know who hit who first. A person can't start a fight and just b/c they are losing...pull a gun. Again we don't know who hit who first and that's what hurt the state's case but there were events leading up to the fight that do show GZ as the aggressor and his numerous lies. It is what it is but bottom line is don't bring a gun to fist fight and if a person is that scared as GZ claimed...stay your butt in the car or go to a safe place and let the police handle the situation like they are paid to do. Depending on the state law, from what I've seen with FL self defense law: The 2012 Florida Statutes Title XLVI CRIMES Chapter 776 JUSTIFIABLE USE OF FORCE View Entire Chapter 776.013 Home protection; use of deadly force; presumption of fear of death or great bodily harm.— (1) A person is presumed to have held a reasonable fear of imminent peril of death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another when using defensive force that is intended or likely to cause death or great bodily harm to another if: (a) The person against whom the defensive force was used was in the process of unlawfully and forcefully entering, or had unlawfully and forcibly entered, a dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle, or if that person had removed or was attempting to remove another against that person’s will from the dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle; and ( The person who uses defensive force knew or had reason to believe that an unlawful and forcible entry or unlawful and forcible act was occurring or had occurred. (2) The presumption set forth in subsection (1) does not apply if: (a) The person against whom the defensive force is used has the right to be in or is a lawful resident of the dwelling, residence, or vehicle, such as an owner, lessee, or titleholder, and there is not an injunction for protection from domestic violence or a written pretrial supervision order of no contact against that person; or ( The person or persons sought to be removed is a child or grandchild, or is otherwise in the lawful custody or under the lawful guardianship of, the person against whom the defensive force is used; or © The person who uses defensive force is engaged in an unlawful activity or is using the dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle to further an unlawful activity; or (d) The person against whom the defensive force is used is a law enforcement officer, as defined in s. 943.10(14), who enters or attempts to enter a dwelling, residence, or vehicle in the performance of his or her official duties and the officer identified himself or herself in accordance with any applicable law or the person using force knew or reasonably should have known that the person entering or attempting to enter was a law enforcement officer. (3) A person who is not engaged in an unlawful activity and who is attacked in any other place where he or she has a right to be has no duty to retreat and has the right to stand his or her ground and meet force with force, including deadly force if he or she reasonably believes it is necessary to do so to prevent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the commission of a forcible felony. (4) A person who unlawfully and by force enters or attempts to enter a person’s dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle is presumed to be doing so with the intent to commit an unlawful act involving force or violence. (5) As used in this section, the term: (a) “Dwelling” means a building or conveyance of any kind, including any attached porch, whether the building or conveyance is temporary or permanent, mobile or immobile, which has a roof over it, including a tent, and is designed to be occupied by people lodging therein at night. ( “Residence” means a dwelling in which a person resides either temporarily or permanently or is visiting as an invited guest. © “Vehicle” means a conveyance of any kind, whether or not motorized, which is designed to transport people or property. History.—s. 1, ch. 2005-27. http://www.leg.state...s/0776.013.html There is no specific wording as to who starts the fight, whereas in TN law there is specific verbiage about who starts and how that affects the instigator's stand to claim self defense. So, in this case, based on FL law, it does NOT matter who started it, once GZ felt he a reasonable fear of imminent peril of death or great bodily harm to himself then he was justified in using force up to deadly force. Granted things could and probably should have been done differently, but b/c of his role in the NW and recent burglaries, he felt it necessary to try to get location and direction of travel to communicate to the dispatcher at which point TM decided to make bad choices and circle back and lie in wait for GZ to approach him. Anybody seen the autopsy and toxicology report?? I've heard that there might have been signs of DXM in his system or signs of liver damage from use of it. DXM is where people mix dextromethorphan (DXM) cough syrup with an Arizona tea and skittles. According to FL law that is not self defense. That's "stand your ground." A person can not be the aggressor...lose the fight...then pull a gun. The aggressor can gain self defense if they are trying to remove themselves from the situation/fight and the other person pursues them but just b/c the agressor is losing a fight they can't say they feel like their life is in danger and pull a gun. That's not self defense. Since they didn't know who started the fight GZ got the benefit of the doubt. Jurors believed his story more than the states = case closed. If they believed he was the agressor than it's guilty. The principle of Innocence refers to the notion that a person who initiates a conflict should not later be permitted to justify his use of force as self defense. It is this principle that is captured in Florida statute 776.041. It is, however, possible for the initial aggressor of a conflict to regain his “innocence” under certain circumstances., and thereby regain his right to justifiably use force in self defense Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AUGradinTX 0 Posted July 17, 2013 Share Posted July 17, 2013 Wow....81 pages now. Several people have spent a heck of a lot of time in lengthy discussions that have changed no one's opinion or the outcome of the trial. Amazing.......but as they say, whatever cranks your tractor. I'm ready for some FB. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tgr4lfe 220 Posted July 17, 2013 Share Posted July 17, 2013 Juror 37 clearly didn't even have an understanding as to what she was issuing a verdict on in addition to important legal terms as she stated. She was discussing SYG..not a defense arguement that was presented. Your statements are assumptions just like my opinions. There was never any evidence to show 1). Who was screaming and 2) Who started the fight. Your assumptions are that since GZ had some minor injuries that TM started the fight but how is it not possible that GZ couldn't have started it and got his azz beat in the process? Bottom line is we don't know and the jury didn't either so their decision wasn't based on if GZ was telling the truth it was based on not enough evidence. Not guilty is not the same as innocent. No one saw the altercation from start to finish; only bits and pieces. I'm sorry if can't understand my short had phone texting; maybe you can get a teenager to break it down for you. You and TT can spin all you want if it makes you feel good. It's quite amusing. The only points i've ever made pertain to seeing things from a different point of view that related to the evidence that certainly could've occurred that was simply ignored for whatever reason. Nobody is spinning anything. It's deductive logic. There was evidence. Yes, it was circumstantial, but when you have three or four pieces of circumstantial evidence it then becomes corroborating evidence that supports one inference over the other. There was no circumstantial evidence suggesting it was TM's voice on the recording. There was circumstantial evidence suggesting either could have started the fight. I just believe there was more supporting GZ's claim. Key word: circumstantial which means not direct evidence to come to a conclusion that clearly tells the story which is why the verdict was not guilty. Again "your" belief..doesn't mean it's actual truth just like what i believe what i do but nothing to support which version is the actual truth. I respect everyone's point of view that's unpopular point but i based nothing off what i "feel" but rather how i saw the trial and interpreted the evidence not feelings. No, it doesn't mean it is 100% the truth. You're fault is that you keep saying there is no evidence to support what I believe to be the truth. There is. You need to take a deep breath and realize that even though the evidence that supports what I believe is corroborative, there is NONE, ZERO, ZIP that supports what you believe. Hence the "not guilty" verdict. You can knock on my circumstantial and corroborative evidence all you'd like. But when it comes down to it, my circumstantial/corroborative evidence is more than you've got. All you have is far-sighted speculation with nothing to back it up except "it could have happened." A lot of things could have happened. Luckily for us, wild speculation doesn't mean squat in a courtroom. Evidence does. But there wasn't any evidence to support who attacked who first thus proof or dis proof self defense. GZ's injuries alone is not evidence he was hit first. lol. You backed up key parts of GZ's story. I have not even stated what i think happened. I''ve only questioned certain elements of your theory that didn't have any evidence from trial to support it. I've always stated we have no indication who started the fight. lol. Sounds like you're the one that needs to take a deep breath. You're certainly within your right to believe as you please but to say there was clear evidence to support the theory you gave is false. There is a difference between not guilty and being innocent and that's my point. Casey Anthony was found not guilty but doesn't mean she's innocent. GZ's story didn't have to be true in order from him to be found not guilty it simply means the burden of proof wasn't met not that GZ's version of the story was true. Everything i've addressed has been backed by testimony and evidence. You might need to re-read as i've never given my theory as to what happened nor did i say i agreed with everything the prosecution proposed. Make sure you know someone's stance before accusing them of not providing facts. The physical injury evidence showed TM to be the primary aggressor based on TM's knuckles and GZ's head injuries. I believe based on the evidence from 911 tapes and TM's call to the girl, and that TM circled back on GZ and hid, that is pretty good circumstantial evidence to point toward TM as the primary aggressor also. His injuries showed he got beat up...not who started the fight thus GZ could've been the aggressor who just go beat up in the process. We don't know who hit who first. A person can't start a fight and just b/c they are losing...pull a gun. Again we don't know who hit who first and that's what hurt the state's case but there were events leading up to the fight that do show GZ as the aggressor and his numerous lies. It is what it is but bottom line is don't bring a gun to fist fight and if a person is that scared as GZ claimed...stay your butt in the car or go to a safe place and let the police handle the situation like they are paid to do. Depending on the state law, from what I've seen with FL self defense law: The 2012 Florida Statutes Title XLVI CRIMES Chapter 776 JUSTIFIABLE USE OF FORCE View Entire Chapter 776.013 Home protection; use of deadly force; presumption of fear of death or great bodily harm.— (1) A person is presumed to have held a reasonable fear of imminent peril of death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another when using defensive force that is intended or likely to cause death or great bodily harm to another if: (a) The person against whom the defensive force was used was in the process of unlawfully and forcefully entering, or had unlawfully and forcibly entered, a dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle, or if that person had removed or was attempting to remove another against that person’s will from the dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle; and ( The person who uses defensive force knew or had reason to believe that an unlawful and forcible entry or unlawful and forcible act was occurring or had occurred. (2) The presumption set forth in subsection (1) does not apply if: (a) The person against whom the defensive force is used has the right to be in or is a lawful resident of the dwelling, residence, or vehicle, such as an owner, lessee, or titleholder, and there is not an injunction for protection from domestic violence or a written pretrial supervision order of no contact against that person; or ( The person or persons sought to be removed is a child or grandchild, or is otherwise in the lawful custody or under the lawful guardianship of, the person against whom the defensive force is used; or © The person who uses defensive force is engaged in an unlawful activity or is using the dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle to further an unlawful activity; or (d) The person against whom the defensive force is used is a law enforcement officer, as defined in s. 943.10(14), who enters or attempts to enter a dwelling, residence, or vehicle in the performance of his or her official duties and the officer identified himself or herself in accordance with any applicable law or the person using force knew or reasonably should have known that the person entering or attempting to enter was a law enforcement officer. (3) A person who is not engaged in an unlawful activity and who is attacked in any other place where he or she has a right to be has no duty to retreat and has the right to stand his or her ground and meet force with force, including deadly force if he or she reasonably believes it is necessary to do so to prevent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the commission of a forcible felony. (4) A person who unlawfully and by force enters or attempts to enter a person’s dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle is presumed to be doing so with the intent to commit an unlawful act involving force or violence. (5) As used in this section, the term: (a) “Dwelling” means a building or conveyance of any kind, including any attached porch, whether the building or conveyance is temporary or permanent, mobile or immobile, which has a roof over it, including a tent, and is designed to be occupied by people lodging therein at night. ( “Residence” means a dwelling in which a person resides either temporarily or permanently or is visiting as an invited guest. © “Vehicle” means a conveyance of any kind, whether or not motorized, which is designed to transport people or property. History.—s. 1, ch. 2005-27. http://www.leg.state...s/0776.013.html There is no specific wording as to who starts the fight, whereas in TN law there is specific verbiage about who starts and how that affects the instigator's stand to claim self defense. So, in this case, based on FL law, it does NOT matter who started it, once GZ felt he a reasonable fear of imminent peril of death or great bodily harm to himself then he was justified in using force up to deadly force. Granted things could and probably should have been done differently, but b/c of his role in the NW and recent burglaries, he felt it necessary to try to get location and direction of travel to communicate to the dispatcher at which point TM decided to make bad choices and circle back and lie in wait for GZ to approach him. Anybody seen the autopsy and toxicology report?? I've heard that there might have been signs of DXM in his system or signs of liver damage from use of it. DXM is where people mix dextromethorphan (DXM) cough syrup with an Arizona tea and skittles. According to FL law that is not self defense. That's "stand your ground." A person can not be the aggressor...lose the fight...then pull a gun. The aggressor can gain self defense if they are trying to remove themselves from the situation/fight and the other person pursues them but just b/c the agressor is losing a fight they can't say they feel like their life is in danger and pull a gun. That's not self defense. Since they didn't know who started the fight GZ got the benefit of the doubt. Jurors believed his story more than the states = case closed. If they believed he was the agressor than it's guilty. The principle of Innocence refers to the notion that a person who initiates a conflict should not later be permitted to justify his use of force as self defense. It is this principle that is captured in Florida statute 776.041. It is, however, possible for the initial aggressor of a conflict to regain his “innocence” under certain circumstances., and thereby regain his right to justifiably use force in self defense Weird that was not connected in what I saw under self defense, where other states it is. But, by (2)(a) or ( of what you referenced the "aggressor" could use justifiable deadly force if they believed the force to be so great and they had exhausted reasonable means to escape OR they indicated withdrawal from conflict. So, dependent on what took place in and during the fight, it could be justifiable. Regardless, the prosecution was forced to charge him and shot for the moon with a miss. I think you or someone said that the prosecution would have been better served to have charged with manslaughter or form of, instead of Murder 2. I for one don't believe that GZ did anything illegally when it comes to the death of TM. I do believe that TM might have been up to something that night or on something. It is never a good thing for someone to have to take a life, it is sad, but when all involved make mistakes bad things end up happening. Florida Statutes (Fla. Stat.)Title XLVI. Crimes. Chapter 776: JUSTIFIABLE USE OF FORCE 776.041 Use of force by aggressor.— The justification described in the preceding sections of this chapter is not available to a person who: (1) Is attempting to commit, committing, or escaping after the commission of, a forcible felony; or (2) Initially provokes the use of force against himself or herself, unless: (a) Such force is so great that the person reasonably believes that he or she is in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm and that he or she has exhausted every reasonable means to escape such danger other than the use of force which is likely to cause death or great bodily harm to the assailant; or ( In good faith, the person withdraws from physical contact with the assailant and indicates clearly to the assailant that he or she desires to withdraw and terminate the use of force, but the assailant continues or resumes the use of force. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WarEagle1983 2,185 Posted July 17, 2013 Share Posted July 17, 2013 Juror 37 clearly didn't even have an understanding as to what she was issuing a verdict on in addition to important legal terms as she stated. She was discussing SYG..not a defense arguement that was presented. Your statements are assumptions just like my opinions. There was never any evidence to show 1). Who was screaming and 2) Who started the fight. Your assumptions are that since GZ had some minor injuries that TM started the fight but how is it not possible that GZ couldn't have started it and got his azz beat in the process? Bottom line is we don't know and the jury didn't either so their decision wasn't based on if GZ was telling the truth it was based on not enough evidence. Not guilty is not the same as innocent. No one saw the altercation from start to finish; only bits and pieces. I'm sorry if can't understand my short had phone texting; maybe you can get a teenager to break it down for you. You and TT can spin all you want if it makes you feel good. It's quite amusing. The only points i've ever made pertain to seeing things from a different point of view that related to the evidence that certainly could've occurred that was simply ignored for whatever reason. Nobody is spinning anything. It's deductive logic. There was evidence. Yes, it was circumstantial, but when you have three or four pieces of circumstantial evidence it then becomes corroborating evidence that supports one inference over the other. There was no circumstantial evidence suggesting it was TM's voice on the recording. There was circumstantial evidence suggesting either could have started the fight. I just believe there was more supporting GZ's claim. Key word: circumstantial which means not direct evidence to come to a conclusion that clearly tells the story which is why the verdict was not guilty. Again "your" belief..doesn't mean it's actual truth just like what i believe what i do but nothing to support which version is the actual truth. I respect everyone's point of view that's unpopular point but i based nothing off what i "feel" but rather how i saw the trial and interpreted the evidence not feelings. No, it doesn't mean it is 100% the truth. You're fault is that you keep saying there is no evidence to support what I believe to be the truth. There is. You need to take a deep breath and realize that even though the evidence that supports what I believe is corroborative, there is NONE, ZERO, ZIP that supports what you believe. Hence the "not guilty" verdict. You can knock on my circumstantial and corroborative evidence all you'd like. But when it comes down to it, my circumstantial/corroborative evidence is more than you've got. All you have is far-sighted speculation with nothing to back it up except "it could have happened." A lot of things could have happened. Luckily for us, wild speculation doesn't mean squat in a courtroom. Evidence does. But there wasn't any evidence to support who attacked who first thus proof or dis proof self defense. GZ's injuries alone is not evidence he was hit first. lol. You backed up key parts of GZ's story. I have not even stated what i think happened. I''ve only questioned certain elements of your theory that didn't have any evidence from trial to support it. I've always stated we have no indication who started the fight. lol. Sounds like you're the one that needs to take a deep breath. You're certainly within your right to believe as you please but to say there was clear evidence to support the theory you gave is false. There is a difference between not guilty and being innocent and that's my point. Casey Anthony was found not guilty but doesn't mean she's innocent. GZ's story didn't have to be true in order from him to be found not guilty it simply means the burden of proof wasn't met not that GZ's version of the story was true. Everything i've addressed has been backed by testimony and evidence. You might need to re-read as i've never given my theory as to what happened nor did i say i agreed with everything the prosecution proposed. Make sure you know someone's stance before accusing them of not providing facts. The physical injury evidence showed TM to be the primary aggressor based on TM's knuckles and GZ's head injuries. I believe based on the evidence from 911 tapes and TM's call to the girl, and that TM circled back on GZ and hid, that is pretty good circumstantial evidence to point toward TM as the primary aggressor also. His injuries showed he got beat up...not who started the fight thus GZ could've been the aggressor who just go beat up in the process. We don't know who hit who first. A person can't start a fight and just b/c they are losing...pull a gun. Again we don't know who hit who first and that's what hurt the state's case but there were events leading up to the fight that do show GZ as the aggressor and his numerous lies. It is what it is but bottom line is don't bring a gun to fist fight and if a person is that scared as GZ claimed...stay your butt in the car or go to a safe place and let the police handle the situation like they are paid to do. Depending on the state law, from what I've seen with FL self defense law: The 2012 Florida Statutes Title XLVI CRIMES Chapter 776 JUSTIFIABLE USE OF FORCE View Entire Chapter 776.013 Home protection; use of deadly force; presumption of fear of death or great bodily harm.— (1) A person is presumed to have held a reasonable fear of imminent peril of death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another when using defensive force that is intended or likely to cause death or great bodily harm to another if: (a) The person against whom the defensive force was used was in the process of unlawfully and forcefully entering, or had unlawfully and forcibly entered, a dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle, or if that person had removed or was attempting to remove another against that person’s will from the dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle; and ( The person who uses defensive force knew or had reason to believe that an unlawful and forcible entry or unlawful and forcible act was occurring or had occurred. (2) The presumption set forth in subsection (1) does not apply if: (a) The person against whom the defensive force is used has the right to be in or is a lawful resident of the dwelling, residence, or vehicle, such as an owner, lessee, or titleholder, and there is not an injunction for protection from domestic violence or a written pretrial supervision order of no contact against that person; or ( The person or persons sought to be removed is a child or grandchild, or is otherwise in the lawful custody or under the lawful guardianship of, the person against whom the defensive force is used; or © The person who uses defensive force is engaged in an unlawful activity or is using the dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle to further an unlawful activity; or (d) The person against whom the defensive force is used is a law enforcement officer, as defined in s. 943.10(14), who enters or attempts to enter a dwelling, residence, or vehicle in the performance of his or her official duties and the officer identified himself or herself in accordance with any applicable law or the person using force knew or reasonably should have known that the person entering or attempting to enter was a law enforcement officer. (3) A person who is not engaged in an unlawful activity and who is attacked in any other place where he or she has a right to be has no duty to retreat and has the right to stand his or her ground and meet force with force, including deadly force if he or she reasonably believes it is necessary to do so to prevent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the commission of a forcible felony. (4) A person who unlawfully and by force enters or attempts to enter a person’s dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle is presumed to be doing so with the intent to commit an unlawful act involving force or violence. (5) As used in this section, the term: (a) “Dwelling” means a building or conveyance of any kind, including any attached porch, whether the building or conveyance is temporary or permanent, mobile or immobile, which has a roof over it, including a tent, and is designed to be occupied by people lodging therein at night. ( “Residence” means a dwelling in which a person resides either temporarily or permanently or is visiting as an invited guest. © “Vehicle” means a conveyance of any kind, whether or not motorized, which is designed to transport people or property. History.—s. 1, ch. 2005-27. http://www.leg.state...s/0776.013.html There is no specific wording as to who starts the fight, whereas in TN law there is specific verbiage about who starts and how that affects the instigator's stand to claim self defense. So, in this case, based on FL law, it does NOT matter who started it, once GZ felt he a reasonable fear of imminent peril of death or great bodily harm to himself then he was justified in using force up to deadly force. Granted things could and probably should have been done differently, but b/c of his role in the NW and recent burglaries, he felt it necessary to try to get location and direction of travel to communicate to the dispatcher at which point TM decided to make bad choices and circle back and lie in wait for GZ to approach him. Anybody seen the autopsy and toxicology report?? I've heard that there might have been signs of DXM in his system or signs of liver damage from use of it. DXM is where people mix dextromethorphan (DXM) cough syrup with an Arizona tea and skittles. According to FL law that is not self defense. That's "stand your ground." A person can not be the aggressor...lose the fight...then pull a gun. The aggressor can gain self defense if they are trying to remove themselves from the situation/fight and the other person pursues them but just b/c the agressor is losing a fight they can't say they feel like their life is in danger and pull a gun. That's not self defense. Since they didn't know who started the fight GZ got the benefit of the doubt. Jurors believed his story more than the states = case closed. If they believed he was the agressor than it's guilty. The principle of Innocence refers to the notion that a person who initiates a conflict should not later be permitted to justify his use of force as self defense. It is this principle that is captured in Florida statute 776.041. It is, however, possible for the initial aggressor of a conflict to regain his “innocence” under certain circumstances., and thereby regain his right to justifiably use force in self defense Weird that was not connected in what I saw under self defense, where other states it is. But, by (2)(a) or ( of what you referenced the "aggressor" could use justifiable deadly force if they believed the force to be so great and they had exhausted reasonable means to escape OR they indicated withdrawal from conflict. So, dependent on what took place in and during the fight, it could be justifiable. Regardless, the prosecution was forced to charge him and shot for the moon with a miss. I think you or someone said that the prosecution would have been better served to have charged with manslaughter or form of, instead of Murder 2. I for one don't believe that GZ did anything illegally when it comes to the death of TM. I do believe that TM might have been up to something that night or on something. It is never a good thing for someone to have to take a life, it is sad, but when all involved make mistakes bad things end up happening. Florida Statutes (Fla. Stat.)Title XLVI. Crimes. Chapter 776: JUSTIFIABLE USE OF FORCE 776.041 Use of force by aggressor.— The justification described in the preceding sections of this chapter is not available to a person who: (1) Is attempting to commit, committing, or escaping after the commission of, a forcible felony; or (2) Initially provokes the use of force against himself or herself, unless: (a) Such force is so great that the person reasonably believes that he or she is in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm and that he or she has exhausted every reasonable means to escape such danger other than the use of force which is likely to cause death or great bodily harm to the assailant; or ( In good faith, the person withdraws from physical contact with the assailant and indicates clearly to the assailant that he or she desires to withdraw and terminate the use of force, but the assailant continues or resumes the use of force. It's based on the defense GZ took in regards to the trial. His defense was a common self defense claim. Stand your ground is similar but he could've claimed SYG as a defense as well. Both are similar but different in what is and isn't allowed in order to claim as a defense. The difference btw the two is the matter to retreat. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AUcivE09 582 Posted July 17, 2013 Share Posted July 17, 2013 Looks like this thread is back to copying super long conversations WE83 - have you done anything besides comment on this the past few days? Holy crap man! So - do you think GZ should have been convicted? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WarEagle1983 2,185 Posted July 17, 2013 Share Posted July 17, 2013 Looks like this thread is back to copying super long conversations WE83 - have you done anything besides comment on this the past few days? Holy crap man! So - do you think GZ should have been convicted? My previous comments clearly point out everything involving the situation. I'm not getting back into all of that. Just having a converstaion with tgr4lfe about the difference in laws. That's all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AUcivE09 582 Posted July 17, 2013 Share Posted July 17, 2013 Looks like this thread is back to copying super long conversations WE83 - have you done anything besides comment on this the past few days? Holy crap man! So - do you think GZ should have been convicted? My previous comments clearly point out everything involving the situation. I'm not getting back into all of that. Just having a converstaion with tgr4lfe about the difference in laws. That's all. I know your answer - just poking with that part, but for real - you have set up camp here! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Proud Tiger 4,261 Posted July 17, 2013 Share Posted July 17, 2013 Looks like this thread is back to copying super long conversations Some just seem to fill up pages with long quotes and long responses, Is anyone impressed? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.