Started By
Message
re: Zimmerman not guilty
Posted on 7/14/13 at 1:42 am to CHSgc
Posted on 7/14/13 at 1:42 am to CHSgc
quote:
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.
Correct to an extent. Without fault includes only LEGAL fault, not personal stupidity however. If Zimmerman followed Martin, Martin initiated the physical conflict and was bashing his head into the concrete then Zimmerman was legally justified. Period. That is the law.
However, you are wrong with respect to all cases. Florida is one of many states in which deadly force is allowed to defend against theft of property or domain invasion, neither of which requires one to be causing physical harm to another. If someone is stealing your car and you shoot them in Florida, you are justified.
Nobody is buying the lawyer schtick dude. This is pitiful.
1
Posted on 7/14/13 at 1:43 am to bamaboy87
quote:
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
The question is at what point do you start fearing for you life and at what point does the law allow you to use deadly force to protect yourself. Confronted by an unarmed person, whom you pursued, while you yourself were armed... well, I don't know of too much precedent that would allow you to use deadly force in response, even if someone assaulted you violently.
Posted on 7/14/13 at 1:45 am to CHSgc
quote:
If you get in a bar fight you're going to use a gun?
It' illegal to carry in a bar even if you have a CHL. So yes, anyone who shoots someone in a bar fight has committed a crime.
Lawyer my arse.
Posted on 7/14/13 at 1:46 am to southpontotoc31
quote:
Come on y'all, this guy is a lawyer, he is automatically right. Duh.
Dude doesn't even know where someone with a CHL is legally allowed to carry and he wants us to believe he's a lawyer
Posted on 7/14/13 at 1:46 am to CHSgc
I can't say at what point I would begin fearing for my life. If someone pulled a knife, I would say immediately. If it is just fists, it would depend on how that fight goes. I'm not saying one swing and i'd kill someone. I'm talking about real fear for my life. That is a judgement that can only be made once in that situation
Posted on 7/14/13 at 1:47 am to CHSgc
quote:
at what point does the law allow you to use deadly force to protect yourself.
Let me spell it out for you...again:
1) He or she reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent imminent death to himself or herself or another
2) or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another
3) or to prevent the imminent commission of a forcible felony
Posted on 7/14/13 at 1:48 am to Roger Klarvin
quote:
Correct to an extent. Without fault includes only LEGAL fault, not personal stupidity however. If Zimmerman followed Martin, Martin initiated the physical conflict and was bashing his head into the concrete then Zimmerman was legally justified. Period. That is the law.
Martin initiated the physical conflict, huh? GZ was in his car. TM did not approach his car. And "basing his head in the concrete" is a hyperbolic way of saying Martin attacked GZ. GZ didn't receive hospital treatment for his injuries. Deadly force is TYPICALLY signified by assault w/ a weapon.
quote:
However, you are wrong with respect to all cases. Florida is one of many states in which deadly force is allowed to defend against theft of property or domain invasion, neither of which requires one to be causing physical harm to another. If someone is stealing your car and you shoot them in Florida, you are justified.
Uh, so which was Martin doing? Theft of prop or domain invasion? Or was he "bashing GZ's head" to get his car keys?
Posted on 7/14/13 at 1:48 am to CHSgc
quote:
Nearly everything is this statement is either objectionable or incorrect.
Please, enlighten me. Based on your posts however I'm guessing you had to look up the definition of "objectionable" to even finish this post
This is pitiful.
Posted on 7/14/13 at 1:51 am to CHSgc
I dont start fights, but if someone attacks me when I am alone, knocks me to the ground of whatever, if I have a gun I will pull it. If they keep coming I will pull the trigger. End of story.
Posted on 7/14/13 at 1:51 am to bamaboy87
quote:
I can't say at what point I would begin fearing for my life. If someone pulled a knife, I would say immediately. If it is just fists, it would depend on how that fight goes. I'm not saying one swing and i'd kill someone. I'm talking about real fear for my life. That is a judgement that can only be made once in that situation
I agree. At some point physical violence can escalate to the point where you genuinely fear for your life. At this point, however, you have to assess the culpability of the person who initiated contact.
Posted on 7/14/13 at 1:52 am to CHSgc
quote:
Martin initiated the physical conflict, huh?
Even the prosecution all but admitted this.
quote:
And "basing his head in the concrete" is a hyperbolic way of saying Martin attacked GZ. GZ didn't receive hospital treatment for his injuries.
And? There are pictures that clearly show significant facial and head wounds on Zimmerman and the autopsy showed NO signs of physical damage to Martin other than the gunshot.
quote:
Deadly force is TYPICALLY signified by assault w/ a weapon.
No it fricking isn't. The self-defense statute doesn't require nor does it even mention weapons in Florida
Posted on 7/14/13 at 1:52 am to CheeseburgerEddie
quote:
I dont start fights, but if someone attacks me when I am alone, knocks me to the ground of whatever, if I have a gun I will pull it. If they keep coming I will pull the trigger. End of story.
Agreed. If TM had shot GZ he'd be perfectly justified using this logic.
Posted on 7/14/13 at 1:52 am to Roger Klarvin
I just want him to PROVE that Zimmerman as not in fear for his life. No speculation that the injuries were not bad enough. That completely misses the point of self defense.
PROVE that it was not self defense. PROVE that Zimmerman started the fight. Getting out of your car and watching someone is not against the law.
People love to throw out that the 911 operator told him that he didn't need to follow him, but miss the FACT that the 911 operator also told him to let them know if he does anything else.
There are too many double standards people are trying to play here.
PROVE that it was not self defense. PROVE that Zimmerman started the fight. Getting out of your car and watching someone is not against the law.
People love to throw out that the 911 operator told him that he didn't need to follow him, but miss the FACT that the 911 operator also told him to let them know if he does anything else.
There are too many double standards people are trying to play here.
Posted on 7/14/13 at 1:53 am to CHSgc
That is assuming GZ initiated the physical assault.
Posted on 7/14/13 at 1:54 am to CHSgc
quote:
If TM had shot GZ he'd be perfectly justified using this logic.
Only if Zimmerman initiated the fight itself.
This post was edited on 7/14/13 at 1:55 am
Posted on 7/14/13 at 1:54 am to CheeseburgerEddie
And you would be justified.
CHSgc obviously doesn't know what he's talking about. His "lawyer" status is severely damaged. The law was presented to him quoted directly and in clear language.
The question that needs to be answered is:
Assuming you are not the aggressor and are not committing a crime, are you in reasonable fear for your life or of great bodily harm from being punched repeatedly in the face and having your head pummeled on a concrete sidewalk?
CHSgc obviously doesn't know what he's talking about. His "lawyer" status is severely damaged. The law was presented to him quoted directly and in clear language.
The question that needs to be answered is:
Assuming you are not the aggressor and are not committing a crime, are you in reasonable fear for your life or of great bodily harm from being punched repeatedly in the face and having your head pummeled on a concrete sidewalk?
Posted on 7/14/13 at 1:55 am to CHSgc
Wait wait. Are you saying that If Martin had shot GZ, he would have been justified, but Zimmerman shooting Martin is not???
Correct me if I am wrong in how I read your post...
Correct me if I am wrong in how I read your post...
Posted on 7/14/13 at 1:56 am to Roger Klarvin
quote:
And? There are pictures that clearly show significant facial and head wounds on Zimmerman and the autopsy showed NO signs of physical damage to Martin other than the gunshot.
If someone has used deadly force against you you'd expect there to be, you know, some serious damage.
quote:
No it fricking isn't. The self-defense statute doesn't require nor does it even mention weapons in Florida
Of course it doesn't, dummy, that would limit it's effectiveness and application. It's the same reason a bribery statute doesn't say "money" it just outlines the general idea of bribery, so that if someone gives you a car it still fits.
Case law has shown that deadly force typically involves a weapon. In those cases where no weapon is involved, only physical force, that force is usually substantial enough to result in either serious injury to the person who was privileged to use deadly force or there was such a significant apprehension of that force that a reasonable person would fear for their life.
Posted on 7/14/13 at 1:56 am to bdelarosa7
Punched more than twice in the face and I would be in fear of great bodily harm.
Posted on 7/14/13 at 1:58 am to bamaboy87
quote:
I just want him to PROVE that Zimmerman as not in fear for his life. No speculation that the injuries were not bad enough. That completely misses the point of self defense.
PROVE that it was not self defense. PROVE that Zimmerman started the fight. Getting out of your car and watching someone is not against the law.
Self-defense is an affirmative defense. The burden rests on the defense, not the prosecution. If the defense can show that it was warranted, then the burden shifts to the prosecution
Page 11 of 18
Popular
Back to top
Follow SECRant for SEC Football News