Started By
Message
re: Zimmerman not guilty
Posted on 7/14/13 at 1:28 am to CHSgc
Posted on 7/14/13 at 1:28 am to CHSgc
quote:
Manslaughter is precisely the charge for this sort of scenario
False.
Manslaughter does not factor in a person "reasonably in fear for their life" at all. You're not winning this. The jury got it right.
0
Posted on 7/14/13 at 1:28 am to CHSgc
LINK
The above link is a recent story about a person who dies from a punch at a beach party. Not trying to argue about the case, but if someone attacks me, I will use any degree of force necessary to stop them. I'm not waiting around to see what they intend to do before i defend myself in the most effective way possible.
The above link is a recent story about a person who dies from a punch at a beach party. Not trying to argue about the case, but if someone attacks me, I will use any degree of force necessary to stop them. I'm not waiting around to see what they intend to do before i defend myself in the most effective way possible.
Posted on 7/14/13 at 1:29 am to Roger Klarvin
quote:
Speculation.
If you were a lawyer, you'd know that speculation does not fly in court. More so, I would argue that there is actual evidence to the contrary.
The "speculation" would make a good case. And even so, you are only privileged to use the degree of force used against you. There is substantially little evidence to suggest that Martin used deadly force against Zimmerman.
quote:
The Prosecution failed miserably at this
Agreed.
quote:
NONE of this can be even remotely proven with the given evidence. Even it could be, being confronted in a hostile tone is no legal excuse for using violent force. You might be interested to know (or just ignoring) that even the prosecution acknowledged that the first physical act was very possibly and even likely initiated by Trayvon.
Yep, it was def initiated by Trayvon. An armed man got out of his car, against professional advice, and pursued him.
And if Trayvon did initiate contact (however unlikely that may be) then GZ has a case against him for assault and battery. But to speculate that Martin wanted GZ dead and attacked him w/ that intent is no different than speculating that Zimmerman assaulted Martin in the first place.
quote:
Also, the police never told him not to follow. Ever. The dispatcher said you don't HAVE to follow. This a lie that everyone has seemingly bought into.
They said "we don't need you to do that" ...nor is it an accepted understanding that civilians should confront potentially dangerous suspects in the street alone.
quote:
Manslaughter requires that one commits an action that directly leads to the death of another. Those actions are superceded by one's right to defend themselves
No, dummy, this is so wrong as to be unworthy of a response.
Posted on 7/14/13 at 1:29 am to CHSgc
quote:
As an aggressor (which Zimmerman was almost surely in this case)
Prove it. The Prosecution couldn't.
quote:
(and really it doesn't even matter who was the aggresor)
Yes. Yes it does.
quote:
Zimmerman's injuries didn't even require hospitalization
You're missing the point. He does not have to wait for it to get to that point to defend himself. Nobody does.
Posted on 7/14/13 at 1:31 am to CHSgc
quote:
You are privileged to use the degree of force used against you
Zero chance you're a lawyer because this is absolutely FALSE in almost every state including Florida.
Self-defense does NOT, NOT require an equal use of force. It requires only that a reasonable person would feel threatened to a certain extent. In fact, in many states (again including Florida) one is justified in using deadly force to defend against property theft with NO threat of deadly force against them.
Posted on 7/14/13 at 1:31 am to bamaboy87
quote:
Yes. Yes it does.
No, it doesn't. You aren't privileged to use deadly force if someone attacks you w/ non-deadly force. Except, MAYBE, in FLA w/ the stand your ground law. Which is why I said from the beginning that the statute is fundamentally a bad piece of law but the jury potentially got this one right.
quote:
You're missing the point. He does not have to wait for it to get to that point to defend himself. Nobody does.
Under common law you can use deadly force in defending your home AND THAT IS IT.
Posted on 7/14/13 at 1:33 am to CHSgc
Well then I guess I would be going to jail. Because I, and I am more than willing to bet that YOU, would use deadly force to protect myself if necessary. I'm not going to sit around and take a beating. I don't HAVE to. However I DO have a right to defend myself by any means necessary. If that way of defending myself is with a gun, guess what? I'm gonna use it.
Posted on 7/14/13 at 1:34 am to CHSgc
quote:
Self-defense is a privilege
Self-defense is law, NOT a privilege.
quote:Now I know you're not a lawyer. Here's the actual law:
You are privileged to use the degree of force used against you.
quote:No where in the law does it mention or put restrictions on the "degree of force". The degree of force does not play a role in Florida's self-defense law provisions.
776.012 Use of force in defense of person.—A person is justified in using force, except deadly force, against another when and to the extent that the person reasonably believes that such conduct is necessary to defend himself or herself or another against the other’s imminent use of unlawful force. However, a person is justified in the use of deadly force and does not have a duty to retreat if: (1) He or she reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the imminent commission of a forcible felony; or (2) Under those circumstances permitted pursuant to s. 776.013.
quote:Once again you mention that Zimmerman was the aggressor - you are becoming less and less a lawyer and more and more an idiot.
As an aggressor (which Zimmerman was almost surely in this case)
quote:Yes...it does.
and really it doesn't even matter who was the aggresor
quote:Once again, that's not to say the next punch/slam would not have required hospitalization or have proven to be fatal.
Zimmerman's injuries didn't even require hospitalization
quote:Self-defense relinquishes the accountability Zimmerman has to the aforementioned charges. And these so-called motives are completely unfounded.
Manslaughter is precisely the charge for this sort of scenario. Zimmerman acted recklessly. He pursued and confronted an individual against the advice of professionals. His prior stmts established a likely motive. He was armed.
Posted on 7/14/13 at 1:36 am to Roger Klarvin
quote:
Self-defense does NOT, NOT require an equal use of force. It requires only that a reasonable person would feel threatened to a certain extent. In fact, in many states (again including Florida) one is justified in using deadly force to defend against property theft with NO threat of deadly force against them.
Yes it does, you idiot. A person may use deadly force in self-defense if 1) he is w/o fault 2) he is confronted w/ unlawful force, and 3) he is threatened w/ imminent death or great bodily harm.
State statutes modify this common law definition, as I've already noted, even in my original post.
Please STFU now.
Posted on 7/14/13 at 1:36 am to CHSgc
quote:
But to speculate that Martin wanted GZ dead and attacked him w/ that intent is no different than speculating that Zimmerman assaulted Martin in the first place.
Again, it's laughable you claim to be a lawyer. Martin didn't have any intent at all. All that matters in Florida is whether a rational person would have feared for their life. Self-defense does not require one to guess what the person was trying to do. It matters not what Martin's intent was if his actions could be seen as a threat to life by Zimmerman.
Posted on 7/14/13 at 1:37 am to bamaboy87
quote:
Well then I guess I would be going to jail. Because I, and I am more than willing to bet that YOU, would use deadly force to protect myself if necessary. I'm not going to sit around and take a beating. I don't HAVE to. However I DO have a right to defend myself by any means necessary. If that way of defending myself is with a gun, guess what? I'm gonna use it.
If you get in a bar fight you're going to use a gun? Are you fricking serious?
So if I'm at Gallette's after a game against y'all I should come armed?
Posted on 7/14/13 at 1:37 am to CHSgc
Come on y'all, this guy is a lawyer, he is automatically right. Duh.
Posted on 7/14/13 at 1:37 am to CHSgc
quote:
if someone attacks you w/ non-deadly force
And focusing on this point, you can not prove that it would not have become deadly force if he had not shot him. The prosecution had to prove that he did not fear for his life and they did not do that. He may have stopped it from becoming deadly force. If you can prove that he initiated the fight(no proof exists) and that he was NOT in fear for his life(no proof exists), then go for it.
Posted on 7/14/13 at 1:37 am to bdelarosa7
quote:
No where in the law does it mention or put restrictions on the "degree of force". The degree of force does not play a role in Florida's self-defense law provisions.
It puts restriction on the degree of force in the first fricking line.
Posted on 7/14/13 at 1:38 am to CHSgc
quote:
And if Trayvon did initiate contact (however unlikely that may be) then GZ has a case against him for assault and battery. But to speculate that Martin wanted GZ dead and attacked him w/ that intent is no different than speculating that Zimmerman assaulted Martin in the first place.
So then how does a jury make the decision beyond a reasonable doubt that he committed manslaughter if we can't even deduct this much from the evidence the prosecution presented?
All of this talk about what could've happened or what charge would be better suited is ALL a moot point if you can't prove anything beyond a reasonable doubt.
Posted on 7/14/13 at 1:38 am to CHSgc
quote:
If you get in a bar fight you're going to use a gun? Are you fricking serious?
He's breaking the law by being in a bar with a gun so that eliminates his right to the self-defense provision.
Posted on 7/14/13 at 1:40 am to Stonehog
quote:
It puts restriction on the degree of force in the first fricking line.
You're obviously a moron. Keep reading.
Posted on 7/14/13 at 1:40 am to Roger Klarvin
quote:
Again, it's laughable you claim to be a lawyer. Martin didn't have any intent at all. All that matters in Florida is whether a rational person would have feared for their life. Self-defense does not require one to guess what the person was trying to do. It matters not what Martin's intent was if his actions could be seen as a threat to life by Zimmerman.
Nearly everything is this statement is either objectionable or incorrect. Please stop using legal terms of art when you have no idea what they mean.
Posted on 7/14/13 at 1:41 am to CHSgc
quote:
If you get in a bar fight you're going to use a gun? Are you fricking serious?
Hmmm. If someone attacks me(and I have made no threats or advances to start the fight), and if I am fearing for my life then hell fricking yes I would. I will do whatever is necessary to survive. That being said, I don't go to bars. And I certainly don't spend time around people that would start a physical altercation for no reason
Posted on 7/14/13 at 1:42 am to bdelarosa7
quote:
He's breaking the law by being in a bar with a gun so that eliminates his right to the self-defense provision.
Yeah b/c no bar fights ever take place outside of the bar.
Also, several idiotic states have either introduced or passed legislation allowing concealed carry in bars, if I'm not mistaken. Maybe not Bama, but you see where I was going w/ it.
Page 10 of 18
Popular
Back to top
Follow SECRant for SEC Football News