I demand justice for Daniel AdkinsJr

  • We are currently upgrading MFK. thanks! -neo
Who instigated the situation in the Martin case isn't clear according to the evidence and testimony.

Fear for one's life isn't justification, a reasonable belief that someone is going to severely injure or kill you if their actions continue is justification. You say someone's belief is wrong using the "reasonable person" test and the evidence and witness testimony. The shooter in this case stated that he didn't believe his life was in danger, according to the story and the evidence and witness statement shown so far don't appear to support a claim of self defense.

In one case all the evidence demonstrated that the shooter was beaten while on the ground and may have had reasonable justification in shooting the other man. In the other case the statements and evidence that we have seen show a man with no legal justification shooting another man. It's likely that for some race plays a part in their opinion but if nobody knew the races of the men involved, many of the opinions would be the same.

You left out the fourth group that believes the laws are fine how they are but the evidence and testimony didn't prove Zimmerman guilty of murder or manslaughter beyond a reasonable doubt. We're waiting to see more evidence and testimony on this case but likely never will because there is no major public outcry regarding this case.

Sent from my Huawei-U8665 using MonsterAquariaNetwork App

Pretty sure that fourth group is just about the same as the third group. Once his lawyer gets a hold of him and into court he will say he felt his life was in danger, self defense, SYG what ever he has to say to be found not guilty.
 
Pretty sure that fourth group is just about the same as the third group. Once his lawyer gets a hold of him and into court he will say he felt his life was in danger, self defense, SYG what ever he has to say to be found not guilty.

He'll say whatever he has to say, or the truth, or nothing and the jury will weigh the evidence, testimony, and attorney statements and make a decision using the jury instructions as a guideline through their deliberation finding the defendant guilty only of charges that are proven beyond a reasonable doubt. That's how the system works.

Sent from my Huawei-U8665 using MonsterAquariaNetwork App
 
He'll say whatever he has to say, or the truth, or nothing and the jury will weigh the evidence, testimony, and attorney statements and make a decision using the jury instructions as a guideline through their deliberation finding the defendant guilty only of charges that are proven beyond a reasonable doubt. That's how the system works.

Sent from my Huawei-U8665 using MonsterAquariaNetwork App

That is different how?

Sent from my SGH-T679 using MonsterAquariaNetwork App
 
The real eye opener is seeing that most people actually believe their opinion about defendants' fates are valid, without using the SAME knowledge of all (and ONLY) the facts, laws, & instructions that jurors are under oath to use for deciding verdicts.
even to throw out legal facts which have been made public after a verdict.
(ie; <one example only> "Stand your ground law" was never part of the Zimmerman case.
That was brought up initially by speculators+media, & continued being discussed as "factually relevant".)

Websters Dictionary:

"Definition of PREJUDGE

: to judge before hearing or before full and sufficient examination
&#8212; pre·judg·er noun
&#8212; pre·judg·ment noun

Examples of PREJUDGE

Officials complain that some reporters have prejudged the outcome of the investigation.
"
 
The real eye opener is seeing that most people actually believe their opinion about defendants' fates are valid, without using the SAME knowledge of all (and ONLY) the facts, laws, & instructions that jurors are under oath to use for deciding verdicts.
even to throw out legal facts which have been made public after a verdict.
(ie; <one example only> "Stand your ground law" was never part of the Zimmerman case.
That was brought up initially by speculators+media, & continued being discussed as "factually relevant".)

Websters Dictionary:

"Definition of PREJUDGE

: to judge before hearing or before full and sufficient examination
&mdash; pre·judg·er noun
&mdash; pre·judg·ment noun

Examples of PREJUDGE

Officials complain that some reporters have prejudged the outcome of the investigation.
"

All true. Does not change the fact that the self defense/SYG laws need to be addressed. Or the fact that if Z didn't feel safe by way of being armed this story has a different ending, or never got written. The biggest factor is too many people don't think, just act and someone else pays for it and that applies to both these cases as well as many others.

Sent from my SGH-T679 using MonsterAquariaNetwork App
 
All true. Does not change the fact that the self defense/SYG laws need to be addressed. Or the fact that if Z didn't feel safe by way of being armed this story has a different ending, or never got written. The biggest factor is too many people don't think, just act and someone else pays for it and that applies to both these cases as well as many others.

Sent from my SGH-T679 using MonsterAquariaNetwork App

Hello; Correct me if I get this wrong. The highlighted statement seems to imply that had Zimmerman not had the right to be armed, that he would not have felt comfortable in checking out a stranger in his gated community where there had been some break ins. Meaning, as I take it, that if we private citizens were unarmed we would be less likely to get involved in such events. If such is what you intend, it may well have been that the outcome of that particular incident would have been different.

One thing such a view leaves out is the many thousands of times each year that having the means of self defense at hand has stopped home break ins, assaults and other such crimes often without any physical harm to anyone. A person without a gun can not shoot someone else, that is a given. No personal self defense instruments would also remove a siginificant means of protection that has been a boon for thousands of people. As an older person who also lives alone, it would be very difficult for me to physically fight off even a single younger assailant.

I posted a link on this thread to the self defense laws of my home state a few pages back. Even under such laws the use of lethal force does not happen without some serious consequences. Zimmerman's situation is a good example. Even without the media hype that followed his case, he would face serious legal issues. There is still the real possibility of a civil action. It seems also that if any sliver of chance does exist for it, the federal goverment will try to take action against Zimmerman. Consider the expense such a legal defense can add up to. We do not get to use deadly force with impunity.
 
Hello; Correct me if I get this wrong. The highlighted statement seems to imply that had Zimmerman not had the right to be armed, that he would not have felt comfortable in checking out a stranger in his gated community where there had been some break ins. Meaning, as I take it, that if we private citizens were unarmed we would be less likely to get involved in such events. If such is what you intend, it may well have been that the outcome of that particular incident would have been different.

One thing such a view leaves out is the many thousands of times each year that having the means of self defense at hand has stopped home break ins, assaults and other such crimes often without any physical harm to anyone. A person without a gun can not shoot someone else, that is a given. No personal self defense instruments would also remove a siginificant means of protection that has been a boon for thousands of people. As an older person who also lives alone, it would be very difficult for me to physically fight off even a single younger assailant.

I posted a link on this thread to the self defense laws of my home state a few pages back. Even under such laws the use of lethal force does not happen without some serious consequences. Zimmerman's situation is a good example. Even without the media hype that followed his case, he would face serious legal issues. There is still the real possibility of a civil action. It seems also that if any sliver of chance does exist for it, the federal goverment will try to take action against Zimmerman. Consider the expense such a legal defense can add up to. We do not get to use deadly force with impunity.

Nothing to do with the issues stated. Home defense and feeling tough while following someone are two entirely different animals. Zimmerman was not an aged defenseless person in this situation. There may be a civil suit, I don't know, but the federal prosecution is a mistake.
 
How is coming to a fish related site demanding justice for anything other than fish even logical?

I personally couldn't care less about this.

MFC should block all these threads. JMO

So glad it's not up to you. There would be no lounge and mfk would just be dull

Do you even understand the concept of the lounge?

And with your logic and preference, why do you even visit the lounge? it's contradicting
 
MonsterFishKeepers.com