Trayvon Martin's Girlfriend Lied

#26
#26
hndog609 said:
Did you just stroke out? For one the two cases aren't even remotely similar factually or contextually and 2nd, even if that WERE the case, why are you assuming they operated under the same set of laws? (FL vs CA)
Click to expand...

I understand the differences between criminal & civil law just think its absurd a loophole to the 5th amendment was made simply for the sake of money. One or the other & be done. Obviously a murder charge would fall under criminal so have the trial & just be done. Of course we are a country that sues over any & everything.
 
#27
#27
govols/cc said:
I understand the differences between criminal & civil law just think its absurd a loophole to the 5th amendment was made simply for the sake of money. One or the other & be done. Obviously a murder charge would fall under criminal so have the trial & just be done. Of course we are a country that sues over any & everything.
Click to expand...

Remnants from the notion of crimes against the Crown and crimes against others. Many monarchs took personal offense that individuals were not obeying their laws.
 
#28
#28
govols/cc said:
I understand the differences between criminal & civil law just think its absurd a loophole to the 5th amendment was made simply for the sake of money. One or the other & be done. Obviously a murder charge would fall under criminal so have the trial & just be done. Of course we are a country that sues over any & everything.
Click to expand...

I don't think you understand the point I was making back in post #19. I specifically cited the Castle Doctrine/SYG laws and their protections (in applicable states, like FL) where if a person is cleared of criminal charges in a self-defense case there are legal hurdles set in place against having to then face civil liability. (obviously a scenario galaxies removed from the OJ case)

Actually, from what you posted above, it sounds like you'd very much approve of such laws.
 
#29
#29
I wonder if failing to assert the Stand Your Ground defense in the criminal proceedings will forfeit his right to assert it in civil proceedings.
 
#30
#30
Vol Main said:
I wonder if failing to assert the Stand Your Ground defense in the criminal proceedings will forfeit his right to assert it in civil proceedings.
Click to expand...

It's an interesting question though I have no idea what scenario would have that be a viable defense in the former and not invoke it.
 
#31
#31
govols/cc said:
Lol. Coming from you that doesn't really bother me. It's obviously just about the money. OJ would have been even more worthless in jail (the first time). Maybe it was to fool black people into thinking they actually won.
Click to expand...

I don't know why this made me laugh, but it did.
 
#32
#32
govols/cc said:
Lol. Coming from you that doesn't really bother me. It's obviously just about the money. OJ would have been even more worthless in jail (the first time). Maybe it was to fool black people into thinking they actually won.
Click to expand...

Just like when we "ended slavery". Hook, line and sinker!
 
#34
#34
therealUT said:
If the justice system declares after a legitimate trial that one is not guilty for an action, then it is purely absurd for the justice system to turn around and rule that the same individually is responsible and I'm the wrong for the same act.

Now, this problem is rooted in the absurd notion that there exist offenses against the state (i.e., the criminal) that are absolutely separated from offenses against individual citizens (i.e., the civil).
Click to expand...

Wow.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#36
#36
therealUT said:
Because they do not want to release them. That is reason enough in America.

Now, if the prosecution subpoenas the phone records, then the phone records will be handed over to the prosecution; this does not entail that they will be public record, though.

Your immediate jump from the choice not to release/reveal something to criminal conduct is ridiculous.
Click to expand...

Nixon did not want to release his tapes either:)
 
#40
#40
vol_in_ar said:
Why is Zimmermann's lawyer bypassing his immunity hearing
Click to expand...


This is a total guess, but there are strategic reasons for the defense to play its cards all at once. And, this way, they can make their motion at close of evidence, the judge will withhold ruling and let it go to the jury. If acquittal, no problem. If guilty they can still get a ruling.

Otherwise you put a lot of pressure on the judge who might deny it "to be safe" but then you are under a cloud going to trial that the defense already lost.
 
#41
#41
that makes sense, but turning down an opportunity to get it thrown out, seems like a waste, especially with the cloud hanging over the defense's star witness
 
#42
#42
vol_in_ar said:
that makes sense, but turning down an opportunity to get it thrown out, seems like a waste, especially with the cloud hanging over the defense's star witness
Click to expand...


Not if you think the judge will feel compelled to deny it. And burden in the trial is on the state. I can see wanting to keep the focus on that with conflicting and incomplete eyewitness testimony.
 
New Posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

Advertisement



Back
Top