tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8044318176622758692.post3499367052953376021..comments2024-03-01T03:51:38.081-05:00Comments on Allergic to Bull: The Crime That May Have Been Committed During the George Zimmerman Trial (Update: Gatorlanche!)A.W.http://www.blogger.com/profile/10876021589516844048noreply@blogger.comBlogger3125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8044318176622758692.post-69802270005779477852013-07-05T10:04:33.593-04:002013-07-05T10:04:33.593-04:00The Skype TOS doesn't seem to define what it m...The Skype TOS doesn't seem to define what it means by SPAM, SPIT, etc, as used in 6.3(c). The general meaning of the terms are the bulk sending of unsolicited, generally commercial, messages to a large number of recipients. That does not apply in this case. <br /><br />6.3(e), however, bars using it "to cause or intend to cause embarrassment..., or to harass..., any third party". That might stick. <br /><br />As for the Florida computer crimes statute, I'm not sure §815.06(1)(b) applies either. Sure, the continual incoming calls and messages were annoying, but it was the result of how the O'Mara had configured Skype. <br /><br />He had the option to turn notifications off, to only accept calls and messages from known users, etc. By failing to do so, O'Mara authorized anyone to IM or call him.<br /><br />You might be able to get them under §815.06(1)(a), assuming that a terms of service violation automatically turns you into an unauthorized user. But I honestly don't hope you think that. <br /><br />As Kozinski said in US v. Nosal; "...Consider the numerous dating websites whose terms of use prohibit inaccurate or misleading information... describing yourself as “tall, dark and handsome,” when you’re actually short and homely, will earn you a handsome orange jumpsuit."Jim Tuckhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09676464173607860313noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8044318176622758692.post-80152833364780456952013-07-05T08:50:58.083-04:002013-07-05T08:50:58.083-04:00Very interesting analysis. I have not been followi...Very interesting analysis. I have not been following this trial that closely so your post really adds some perspective and insight. Thanks for your post.Steven J Frommhttp://frommtaxes.wordpress.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8044318176622758692.post-5795439378473492202013-07-03T17:17:34.588-04:002013-07-03T17:17:34.588-04:00You're mistaken about the burden of proof bein...You're mistaken about the burden of proof being on the state in regard's to Zimmerman's claim of self-defense.<br /><br />Self-defense is an affirmative defense, which shifts the burden of proof onto the defendant.<br /><br />On the charge of 2nd degree murder, however, this is basically moot; realistically Zimmerman cannot have both a depraved mind/ill will required for that charge and be acting in self defense. Effectively, a jury can find against the charge of 2nd even without coming to a conclusion on self defense or even concluding against Zimmerman's self defense.<br /><br />However, on the lesser included charge of manslaughter, self-defense is Zimmerman's only defense, since he obviously has admitted to inflicting great bodily injury resulting in death. So if Zimmerman escapes the 2nd degree murder charge, he still has the burden to prove he acted in self-defense. The jury MUST believe him, since he is the only witness, which is contra what you argued.Nessunonoreply@blogger.com