On Fri, 20 Apr 2012 14:42:35 -0500, Michael Dobony
wrote:

On Wed, 18 Apr 2012 12:32:02 -0400, zzzzzzzzzz wrote:

On Wed, 18 Apr 2012 11:03:35 -0500, Michael Dobony
wrote:

On Sun, 15 Apr 2012 18:13:11 -0700, Oren wrote:

On Sun, 15 Apr 2012 20:52:30 -0400, "
wrote:

On Sun, 15 Apr 2012 14:52:58 -0700, Oren wrote:

On Sun, 15 Apr 2012 16:11:54 -0500, Michael Dobony
wrote:

As I recall witness saw M on top of Z in the general vicinity of Z's
vehicle, NOT stalking M. This puts serious doubts of second degree murder
and strong evidence for self defense. Realistically, the only ones who will
have all the facts are the prosecutors and the defense attorneys. Too many
times one party or the other demands and gets evidence removed from the
courtroom. The press will of course twist the evidence as they did in the
Kobe Bryant and the Duke Lacrosse rape cases.


Z will get two bites of the self defense apple.

1st bite will be at the hearing claiming immunity before the judge.
The judge can toss the case or bind it to trial.

2nd bite is his claim of self defense before the jury.

I read numerous legal minds are shocked or surprised charges were
brought forth in the first place, based on the charging document.

Alan Dershowitz' comments were priceless.

"..."It's a stretch charge," from a Miami attorney. Similar from an
Orlando attorney... ""I don't really think that there's probable cause
to support [second-degree murder] at all," Hornsby said. He said the
charge looks like an attempt to "appease the public" and create
leverage for the state."

http://articles.orlandosentinel.com/2012-04-14/news/os-george-zimmerman-2nd-degree-murder-20120414_1_manslaughter-charge-craig-sandhaus-second-degree-murder

No worry, HLN's Nancy Grace is on the case!

remember the charges in the subway shooting case about a decade ago? The
victim shot his assailants and one was paralyzed. In a civil case the
mugger won, claiming he can't work because of the victim's response to his
assault.

Another good reason for SYG to be universal.

SYG is for criminal cases. Civil cases are won not by point of law, but
many times by stupid jurors being convinced that the law failed.

Why do you make such obviously false statements, particularly when the there's
the likes of Google?