Page 6 of 29 FirstFirst ... 234567891016 ... LastLast
Results 76 to 90 of 432
  1. #76
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Houston, TX Y'all
    Posts
    27,544

    Re: George Zimmerman Trial



    At the 10:00 minute mark, Zimmerman explains the details that night to police.

    He was down, screaming for help with Trayvon on top of him when Trayvon sees the gun in the holster and goes for it.

    WARNING: This post may contain material offensive to those who lack wit, humor, common sense and/or supporting factual or anecdotal evidence. All statements and assertions contained herein may be subject to literary devices not limited to: irony, metaphor, allusion and dripping sarcasm.




  2. #77
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Clayton,NC
    Posts
    7,745

    Re: George Zimmerman Trial

    Quote Originally Posted by Dade View Post
    Exactly. In this case, shooting from anything other than on his back destorys his claim of self defense. If I'm the prosecution I'm asking that question if Zimmerman takes the stand.
    Forensic evidence and witness testimony (that they never saw Martin move after hearing a shot) pretty much make it a99/9% certainty that he shot him when he was mounted.
    We are all born ignorant, but one must work hard to remain stupid. - Benjamin Franklin




  3. #78

    Re: George Zimmerman Trial

    Quote Originally Posted by HoustonRaven View Post
    Not according to FL's "Stand Your Ground" law.
    You are right, he doesn't have a legal duty to retreat or flee, but he does have a legal duty to "reasonably believe deadly force is necessary to prevent great bodily harm or death."

    The ability to move/dodge/escape absolutely raises the hurdle on what is required to "reasonably believe" you are in danger of great bodily harm. At least in the case where the other guy is unarmed.

    If the fight was a standing fight, his injuries do not even get in the ballpark of making such a fear "reasonable," imo. You cannot get in a fight and after the first punch, pull out a gun and shoot someone, even under Stand Your Ground; at least not how I read the law. Nor do I think you can get in a fight, get pinned and beaten for a bit, then when the other guy let's you up, you stand up and shoot him.

    EDIT: Of course searching the vast number of cases (and the results) in which Stand Your Ground was used as a defense, makes me wonder if there is really any consistent application at all with the law. It appears to be interpreted in the craziest and inconsistent of ways (both in terms of convictions and acquittals) depending on the circumstances/jury, based on some of the case summaries I am seeing.
    Last edited by Haloti92; 07-02-2013 at 05:17 PM.




  4. #79
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Clayton,NC
    Posts
    7,745

    Re: George Zimmerman Trial

    Quote Originally Posted by Haloti92 View Post
    You are right, he doesn't have a legal duty to retreat or flee, but he does have a legal duty to "reasonably believe deadly force is necessary to prevent great bodily harm or death."

    The ability to move/dodge/escape absolutely raises the hurdle on what is required to "reasonably believe" you are in danger of great bodily harm. At least in the case where the other guy is unarmed.

    If the fight was a standing fight, his injuries do not even get in the ballpark of making such a fear "reasonable," imo. You cannot get in a fight and after the first punch, pull out a gun and shoot someone, even under Stand Your Ground; at least not how I read the law. Nor do I think you can get in a fight, get pinned and beaten for a bit, then when the other guy let's you up, you stand up and shoot him.

    EDIT: Of course searching the vast number of cases (and the results) in which Stand Your Ground was used as a defense, makes me wonder if there is really any consistent application at all with the law. It appears to be interpreted in the craziest of ways (both in terms of convictions and acquittals) depending on the circumstances/jury, based on some of the case summaries I am seeing.
    I am pretty sure if you don't start the fight and someone hits you you are justified to use deadly force. If they push you, you are not. At least that was the understanding from the explination in the concealed carry course I took.
    We are all born ignorant, but one must work hard to remain stupid. - Benjamin Franklin




  5. #80

    Re: George Zimmerman Trial

    Quote Originally Posted by NCRAVEN View Post
    I am pretty sure if you don't start the fight and someone hits you you are justified to use deadly force. If they push you, you are not. At least that was the understanding from the explination in the concealed carry course I took.
    If that is the case than I would say the law is not being followed at all. The text of the law (for Florida) is:

    http://www.leg.state.fl.us/statutes/.../0776.013.html

    Where, in this case (not in dwelling, residence, or vehicle) Section (3) applies:

    Quote Originally Posted by link
    (3) A person who is not engaged in an unlawful activity and who is attacked in any other place where he or she has a right to be has no duty to retreat and has the right to stand his or her ground and meet force with force, including deadly force if he or she reasonably believes it is necessary to do so to prevent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the commission of a forcible felony.
    I don't see how a single punch being met with a gunshot is "meeting force with force" or how getting punched a single time satisfies "reasonably believes it is necessary to do so to prevent death or great bodily harm." Then again, like I said, I have seen an absurd range of variable verdicts where the Stand Your Ground defense has been employed.

    But HR is correct, I was wrong. There is no legal duty to flee in this case.
    Last edited by Haloti92; 07-02-2013 at 05:34 PM.




  6. #81
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Clayton,NC
    Posts
    7,745

    Re: George Zimmerman Trial

    Quote Originally Posted by Haloti92 View Post
    If that is the case than I would say the law is not being followed at all. The text of the law (for Florida) is:

    http://www.leg.state.fl.us/statutes/.../0776.013.html

    Where, in this case (not in dwelling, residence, or vehicle) Section (3) applies:



    I don't see how a single punch being met with a gunshot is "meeting force with force" or how getting punched a single time satisfies "reasonably believes it is necessary to do so to prevent death or great bodily harm." Then again, like I said, I have seen an absurd range of variable verdicts where the Stand Your Ground defense has been employed.
    Sorry, I didn't mean stand your ground law. I meant were you would be justified to use deadly force in general.
    We are all born ignorant, but one must work hard to remain stupid. - Benjamin Franklin




  7. #82
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Houston, TX Y'all
    Posts
    27,544

    Re: George Zimmerman Trial

    Except that he wasn't punched in the face once and that was that.
    WARNING: This post may contain material offensive to those who lack wit, humor, common sense and/or supporting factual or anecdotal evidence. All statements and assertions contained herein may be subject to literary devices not limited to: irony, metaphor, allusion and dripping sarcasm.




  8. #83

    Re: George Zimmerman Trial

    Quote Originally Posted by HoustonRaven View Post
    Except that he wasn't punched in the face once and that was that.
    How many blows satisfies the law? And how much force per blow?

    My point is that there is a condition that needs to be satisfied that is greater than "I was hit."

    That condition is measured in "reasonable fear" of "great" bodily harm. To me, the "reasonableness" of such a fear is predicated on how much damage has been sustained, how much damage can be done per blow, how possible it is to avoid such future damage.

    If standing, the odds of avoiding such future damage are not close to zero like they are when pinned down. If standing, the odds of a blow being as damaging as skull to pavement are miniscule (assuming no weapon, knife, gun, lead pipe, etc., for the other guy). Which brings us back to category one. This is the category that has to "pick up the slack" in the "reasonable fear" department once the fight is one where everyone is standing. I don't think getting a broken nose and some minor cuts is much different at all than a single punch (which can break a nose or do worse actually).




  9. #84
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Clayton,NC
    Posts
    7,745

    Re: George Zimmerman Trial

    BUt reasonable fear and great bodil harm are two different things. ONe is past tense the other is in the future.

    Just because the bodily harm I've may have sustained up to the point I shot someone was not life-threatening doesn't mean there is not justified fear he isn't going to keep coming at me, even if standing.
    We are all born ignorant, but one must work hard to remain stupid. - Benjamin Franklin




  10. #85

    Re: George Zimmerman Trial

    Quote Originally Posted by NCRAVEN View Post
    BUt reasonable fear and great bodil harm are two different things. ONe is past tense the other is in the future.

    Just because the bodily harm I've may have sustained up to the point I shot someone was not life-threatening doesn't mean there is not justified fear he isn't going to keep coming at me, even if standing.
    I agree but the reasonableness of the fear increases as damaged-received increases and as the fight goes on (in time). It also increases if the other guy has weapons or a greater capability of doing harm. It also increases if you are unable to move, dodge, fight back (pinned).

    Likewise, the reasonableness of such fear is diminished as these things (damage received, time elapsed, capability of weapon, one's immobility) are decreased.

    Obviously any person could theoretically beat any other person to death with their fists. But to assume that anyone who gets punched a single time is "reasonable" to fear this end result simply makes the condition completely irrelevant.




  11. #86
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Clayton,NC
    Posts
    7,745

    Re: George Zimmerman Trial

    I hear ya. Obviously if someone punches me it's not lawful form me to feel shooting them in retaliation is justified. But if they punch me in the face and were still swinging (but maybe not connecting) and were still coming forward I may be justified in shooting them.

    For the record though, while I did get my concealed carry permit and a situation like that ever happened (the one I just described) I highly dobt I would shoot someone.
    We are all born ignorant, but one must work hard to remain stupid. - Benjamin Franklin




  12. #87

    Re: George Zimmerman Trial

    Quote Originally Posted by NCRAVEN View Post
    I hear ya. Obviously if someone punches me it's not lawful form me to feel shooting them in retaliation is justified. But if they punch me in the face and were still swinging (but maybe not connecting) and were still coming forward I may be justified in shooting them.

    For the record though, while I did get my concealed carry permit and a situation like that ever happened (the one I just described) I highly dobt I would shoot someone.
    with Rao's testimony (medical examiner) yesterday, basically saying she felt his injuries were "extremely insignificant" and that both injuries were consistent with one strike in her opinion (though admitted it was possible they were from more), itll be interesting to see how the jury weighs that. If you yourself are saying more than likely in the same situation you wouldnt pull the trigger but still feel he had the right do the 6 jurors all feel the same or do they weigh that in the same situation they may not have and decide he didnt?
    -JAB




  13. #88
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Houston, TX Y'all
    Posts
    27,544

    Re: George Zimmerman Trial

    Not sure why you're so fixated on just the strikes. Like all trials, it's going to come down to the totality of the event.

    It's going to be the strikes AND his injuries AND his mouth and nose being covered AND Trayvon telling him he was going to die AND going for his gun.

    All of that will be evidence for the jury to consider as well.
    WARNING: This post may contain material offensive to those who lack wit, humor, common sense and/or supporting factual or anecdotal evidence. All statements and assertions contained herein may be subject to literary devices not limited to: irony, metaphor, allusion and dripping sarcasm.




  14. #89

    Re: George Zimmerman Trial

    Quote Originally Posted by HoustonRaven View Post
    Not sure why you're so fixated on just the strikes. Like all trials, it's going to come down to the totality of the event.

    It's going to be the strikes AND his injuries AND his mouth and nose being covered AND Trayvon telling him he was going to die AND going for his gun.

    All of that will be evidence for the jury to consider as well.
    im taking everything hes saying with a grain of salt, which you are not. everything you listed is what hes said about the events. what im pointing to is the evidence that will, or not, support his claim. So the number of strikes the resulting injuries are both large portions of that totality you speak of. covering his nose and telling him hes going to die and going for the gun arent supported by any evidence (nobody heard him say that, no physical evidence that he covered his nose or touched the gun) and based solely on his take of events, which even hes been inconsistent with (told friends and fox he grabbed the gun, told others he was near the gun). my point is just like how NC said it was his right, but wouldnt in the same situation, that could easily be how somebody on the jury feels and consider his actions excessive by weighing those more heavily in the totality of events.
    -JAB




  15. #90
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Houston, TX Y'all
    Posts
    27,544

    Re: George Zimmerman Trial

    Except the legal standard to use deadly force in Florida is HIS fear of death, thus HIS fear of death from those circumstances is evidence.

    The burden of proof is on the state to say his perceptions and fears did not warrant him to shoot Trayvon.
    WARNING: This post may contain material offensive to those who lack wit, humor, common sense and/or supporting factual or anecdotal evidence. All statements and assertions contained herein may be subject to literary devices not limited to: irony, metaphor, allusion and dripping sarcasm.




Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Russell Street Report Website Design by D3Corp Ocean City Maryland