Started By
Message
0
Posted on 6/28/13 at 12:09 am to semotruman
Been there done that I wasn't dumb enough to say something stupid though.
This post was edited on 6/28/13 at 12:11 am
Posted on 6/28/13 at 12:10 am to semotruman
quote:
I hope that if someone follows you some dark night because they don't like what you're wearing that you don't get shot when you ask them why.
I won't be hiding in the bushes and sucker punching them either.
Posted on 6/28/13 at 2:11 am to semotruman
Wait. Zimm asked him why he was wearing a hoodie?
What a weird question.
Also, I did not know so many people wore hoodies and with their hoods up. I could count on two hands how many times Ive seen that in the past year.
Personally, I take my hat and sunglasses off when I go inside out of politeness and just how I was raised. Feels wrong to have a hat or hood on inside.
What a weird question.
Also, I did not know so many people wore hoodies and with their hoods up. I could count on two hands how many times Ive seen that in the past year.
Personally, I take my hat and sunglasses off when I go inside out of politeness and just how I was raised. Feels wrong to have a hat or hood on inside.
Posted on 6/28/13 at 2:11 am to diddydirtyAubie
quote:
I won't be hiding in the bushes and sucker punching them either.
Or being in a gated community that you did not live in.
Posted on 6/28/13 at 7:56 am to dawgfan1979
The media truly WANTS a conviction, regardless of what the truth might be.
Posted on 6/28/13 at 8:08 am to WonderWartHawg
quote:
The media truly WANTS a conviction, regardless of what the truth might be.
yep. i want an innocent verdict just for the Peirs Morgans and Nancy Graces of the world.
Posted on 6/28/13 at 9:16 am to semotruman
quote:
I should say that I believe GZ profiled and basically stalked the kid, and was looking for a fight. I just don't know if it meets the standard for the murder charge.
It should.
Posted on 6/28/13 at 9:29 am to Alahunter
quote:
You're assuming he instigated. He claims he was sucker punched. If someone is using lethal force against you, you by law, have a right to defend yourself with lethal force.
Creating the situation or instigating a fight doesn't always mean throwing the first punch or sucker punching someone.
Regarding the end of the comment, I was not aware a gun or knife was pulled on Zimmerman. If that's the case, I would change my mind.
Posted on 6/28/13 at 9:34 am to diddydirtyAubie
quote:
why did Trayvon call Zimmerman a creepy arse cracka?
Because he was a creepy arse cracka who was stalking his prey.
Posted on 6/28/13 at 9:41 am to CrimsonChin
Trayvon was up to no good and everyone knows it
Posted on 6/28/13 at 9:46 am to sorantable
quote:
Trayvon was up to no good and everyone knows it
I hate to say it but this seems to be the case but still doesn't mean that Zimmerman will get off scot free
Posted on 6/28/13 at 9:53 am to Roger Klarvin
Actually, it is accurate. It is obviously not in legalese and because of that an oversimplification, but to lay out the entire laws of self defense and justification could take books. I know one is given much more latitude if they are actually defending their home and I know that Texas law regarding self defense is much broader, but neither of those situations apply.
Bottom line is, with limited exceptions, one who initially provokes the use of force against himself(doesn't say throws a punch or draws a gun) cannot then claim self defense. Zimmerman, by stalking and chasing his prey, initially provoked the use of force by Trayvon(assuming Trayvon bashed his head). Had Zimmerman, before getting his arse kicked, clearly left the scene and attempted to clear himself of the situation, then yes, he'd be able to claim it again.
I would also say Zimmerman has an uphill battle because typically when arguing self defense, the response has to be proportionate to the attack. In other words, it's very difficult for someone to claim self defense when they pull a gun on someone who is not armed themselves. This can be overcome by Zimmerman, but I don't see how without him testifying. He is going to essentially have to present evidence that he was getting his arse beat so bad that he feared death or next to it and I don't know how they can establish his level of fear (because it is such a subjective thing) without putting him on. Putting a defendant on the stand is also always a dangerous thing to do from a legal point of view.
Bottom line is, with limited exceptions, one who initially provokes the use of force against himself(doesn't say throws a punch or draws a gun) cannot then claim self defense. Zimmerman, by stalking and chasing his prey, initially provoked the use of force by Trayvon(assuming Trayvon bashed his head). Had Zimmerman, before getting his arse kicked, clearly left the scene and attempted to clear himself of the situation, then yes, he'd be able to claim it again.
I would also say Zimmerman has an uphill battle because typically when arguing self defense, the response has to be proportionate to the attack. In other words, it's very difficult for someone to claim self defense when they pull a gun on someone who is not armed themselves. This can be overcome by Zimmerman, but I don't see how without him testifying. He is going to essentially have to present evidence that he was getting his arse beat so bad that he feared death or next to it and I don't know how they can establish his level of fear (because it is such a subjective thing) without putting him on. Putting a defendant on the stand is also always a dangerous thing to do from a legal point of view.
Posted on 6/28/13 at 10:01 am to Roger Klarvin
quote:
Good Samaritan law doesn't apply here,
I do agree with this. Unless there is some Florida specific version of it I'm not aware of, the Good Samaritan law simply provides legal protection to people who stop to give aid to an injured person if they do so negligently. For example, a man has a heart attack and falls to the ground. You stop to give him CPR but do it wrong and the guy dies whreeas he could have lived if you did it right. His family cannot later sue you for his death because you negligently performed CPR.
Posted on 6/28/13 at 10:17 am to Roger Klarvin
quote:
If the prosecution can prove this (along with showing that Zimmerman initiated the fight), they will convict on second degree murder. That charge does not require entering into a situation intending to commit murder, only a malice act that ultimately results in one killing without provocation. Manslaughter is recklessness resulting in you taking someone's life.
Please tell me where the word "malice act" is in this statute.
Fla. Stat. § 782.04 (2012)
Murder
(2) The unlawful killing of a human being, when perpetrated by any act imminently dangerous to another and evincing a depraved mind regardless of human life, although without any premeditated design to effect the death of any particular individual, is murder in the second degree and constitutes a felony of the first degree, punishable by imprisonment for a term of years not exceeding life or as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084.
(3) When a human being is killed during the perpetration of, or during the attempt to perpetrate, any:
(a) Trafficking offense prohibited by s. 893.135(1),
(b) Arson,
(c) Sexual battery,
(d) Robbery,
(e) Burglary,
(f) Kidnapping,
(g) Escape,
(h) Aggravated child abuse,
(i) Aggravated abuse of an elderly person or disabled adult,
(j) Aircraft piracy,
(k) Unlawful throwing, placing, or discharging of a destructive device or bomb,
(l) Carjacking,
(m) Home-invasion robbery,
(n) Aggravated stalking,
(o) Murder of another human being,
(p) Aggravated fleeing or eluding with serious bodily injury or death,
(q) Resisting an officer with violence to his or her person, or
(r) Felony that is an act of terrorism or is in furtherance of an act of terrorism,
by a person other than the person engaged in the perpetration of or in the attempt to perpetrate such felony, the person perpetrating or attempting to perpetrate such felony commits murder in the second degree, which constitutes a felony of the first degree, punishable by imprisonment for a term of years not exceeding life or as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084.
quote:
BUT in a self-defense case manslaughter implies that on some small level Trayvon was at fault as well. If he was completely innocent, this IS murder.
No. No. No.
Fla. Stat. §782.07 (2012)
Manslaughter
(1) The killing of a human being by the act, procurement, or culpable negligence of another, without lawful justification according to the provisions of chapter 776 and in cases in which such killing shall not be excusable homicide or murder, according to the provisions of this chapter, is manslaughter, a felony of the second degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084.
Posted on 6/28/13 at 10:18 am to AUnite
while we're talking self-defense under the Florida Statutes:
Fla. Stat. §776.012 (2012)
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.
GZ's attorney should argue that (if Trayvon) was hitting his head into the concrete, that constitutes a great bodily harm or preventing his death. If this is presented, and the jury believes him, he should get off scot-free, not convicted of the lesser included offense of manslaughter.
some more on using force in defense of persons or homes:
Fla. Stat. §776.013 (2012)
Home protection; use of deadly force; presumption of fear of death or great bodily harm.—
(1) A person is presumed to have held a reasonable fear of imminent peril of death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another when using defensive force that is intended or likely to cause death or great bodily harm to another if:
(a) The person against whom the defensive force was used was in the process of unlawfully and forcefully entering, or had unlawfully and forcibly entered, a dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle, or if that person had removed or was attempting to remove another against that person’s will from the dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle; and
(b) The person who uses defensive force knew or had reason to believe that an unlawful and forcible entry or unlawful and forcible act was occurring or had occurred.
(2) The presumption set forth in subsection (1) does not apply if:
(a) The person against whom the defensive force is used has the right to be in or is a lawful resident of the dwelling, residence, or vehicle, such as an owner, lessee, or titleholder, and there is not an injunction for protection from domestic violence or a written pretrial supervision order of no contact against that person; or
(b) The person or persons sought to be removed is a child or grandchild, or is otherwise in the lawful custody or under the lawful guardianship of, the person against whom the defensive force is used; or
(c) The person who uses defensive force is engaged in an unlawful activity or is using the dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle to further an unlawful activity; or
(d) The person against whom the defensive force is used is a law enforcement officer, as defined in s. 943.10(14), who enters or attempts to enter a dwelling, residence, or vehicle in the performance of his or her official duties and the officer identified himself or herself in accordance with any applicable law or the person using force knew or reasonably should have known that the person entering or attempting to enter was a law enforcement officer.
(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.
Fla. Stat. §776.012 (2012)
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.
GZ's attorney should argue that (if Trayvon) was hitting his head into the concrete, that constitutes a great bodily harm or preventing his death. If this is presented, and the jury believes him, he should get off scot-free, not convicted of the lesser included offense of manslaughter.
some more on using force in defense of persons or homes:
Fla. Stat. §776.013 (2012)
Home protection; use of deadly force; presumption of fear of death or great bodily harm.—
(1) A person is presumed to have held a reasonable fear of imminent peril of death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another when using defensive force that is intended or likely to cause death or great bodily harm to another if:
(a) The person against whom the defensive force was used was in the process of unlawfully and forcefully entering, or had unlawfully and forcibly entered, a dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle, or if that person had removed or was attempting to remove another against that person’s will from the dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle; and
(b) The person who uses defensive force knew or had reason to believe that an unlawful and forcible entry or unlawful and forcible act was occurring or had occurred.
(2) The presumption set forth in subsection (1) does not apply if:
(a) The person against whom the defensive force is used has the right to be in or is a lawful resident of the dwelling, residence, or vehicle, such as an owner, lessee, or titleholder, and there is not an injunction for protection from domestic violence or a written pretrial supervision order of no contact against that person; or
(b) The person or persons sought to be removed is a child or grandchild, or is otherwise in the lawful custody or under the lawful guardianship of, the person against whom the defensive force is used; or
(c) The person who uses defensive force is engaged in an unlawful activity or is using the dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle to further an unlawful activity; or
(d) The person against whom the defensive force is used is a law enforcement officer, as defined in s. 943.10(14), who enters or attempts to enter a dwelling, residence, or vehicle in the performance of his or her official duties and the officer identified himself or herself in accordance with any applicable law or the person using force knew or reasonably should have known that the person entering or attempting to enter was a law enforcement officer.
(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.
This post was edited on 6/28/13 at 10:20 am
Posted on 6/28/13 at 10:18 am to AUnite
(4) A person who unlawfully and by force enters or attempts to enter a person’s dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle is presumed to be doing so with the intent to commit an unlawful act involving force or violence.
(5) As used in this section, the term:
(a) “Dwelling” means a building or conveyance of any kind, including any attached porch, whether the building or conveyance is temporary or permanent, mobile or immobile, which has a roof over it, including a tent, and is designed to be occupied by people lodging therein at night.
(b) “Residence” means a dwelling in which a person resides either temporarily or permanently or is visiting as an invited guest.
(c) “Vehicle” means a conveyance of any kind, whether or not motorized, which is designed to transport people or property.
GZ can't claim (1)(a) or (1)(b) of this section.
GZ saw a teenager walking down the road, not breaking into a house, not breaking into a car, not stalking behind some bushes looking for a way into a house or a car...he was walking down the road with a soda and a bag of mother fricking skittles. GZ left his car and followed Trayvon, against the 911 dispatchers advice. It's reasonable to believe that Trayvon was scared bc a grown arse man was following him. Trayvon had every right to be in that neighborhood, and he was not doing anything unlawful.
With all of the above I've said, quoted and interpreted for your dumbass; I don't think the prosecution will prove their case of murder in the second degree. GZ will probably be convicted of the lesser included offense of manslaughter.
reedus23, I don't know you, but THANK YOU you get get it, and understand it.
(5) As used in this section, the term:
(a) “Dwelling” means a building or conveyance of any kind, including any attached porch, whether the building or conveyance is temporary or permanent, mobile or immobile, which has a roof over it, including a tent, and is designed to be occupied by people lodging therein at night.
(b) “Residence” means a dwelling in which a person resides either temporarily or permanently or is visiting as an invited guest.
(c) “Vehicle” means a conveyance of any kind, whether or not motorized, which is designed to transport people or property.
GZ can't claim (1)(a) or (1)(b) of this section.
quote:
had Martin been intending to commit a crime and Zimmerman stopped him he would have been within his right to stop him. He isn't required to, but it wasn't illegal for him to follow Martin.
GZ saw a teenager walking down the road, not breaking into a house, not breaking into a car, not stalking behind some bushes looking for a way into a house or a car...he was walking down the road with a soda and a bag of mother fricking skittles. GZ left his car and followed Trayvon, against the 911 dispatchers advice. It's reasonable to believe that Trayvon was scared bc a grown arse man was following him. Trayvon had every right to be in that neighborhood, and he was not doing anything unlawful.
With all of the above I've said, quoted and interpreted for your dumbass; I don't think the prosecution will prove their case of murder in the second degree. GZ will probably be convicted of the lesser included offense of manslaughter.
quote:
Bottom line is, with limited exceptions, one who initially provokes the use of force against himself(doesn't say throws a punch or draws a gun) cannot then claim self defense. Zimmerman, by stalking and chasing his prey, initially provoked the use of force by Trayvon(assuming Trayvon bashed his head). Had Zimmerman, before getting his arse kicked, clearly left the scene and attempted to clear himself of the situation, then yes, he'd be able to claim it again.
reedus23, I don't know you, but THANK YOU you get get it, and understand it.
This post was edited on 6/28/13 at 10:20 am
Posted on 6/28/13 at 10:41 am to reedus23
Blank
Posted on 6/28/13 at 10:41 am to TotalRebel
200 
Page 10 of 12
Popular
Back to top
Follow SECRant for SEC Football News