Started By
Message
re: Zimmerman not guilty
Posted on 7/14/13 at 1:59 am to bamaboy87
Posted on 7/14/13 at 1:59 am to bamaboy87
quote:
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...
Legally, no. I was making a point a/b how poorly worded and constructed the OP's stmt was.
1
Posted on 7/14/13 at 1:59 am to CHSgc
quote:
If someone has used deadly force against you you'd expect there to be, you know, some serious damage.
Well that settles it then. Folks just drop it and go on home and forget about it. Zimmerman is guilty. He should have waited until his skull was fractured to defend himself. His injuries were not sufficient to defend himself. He has to wait until he is almost dead to defend himself.
So if any of you ever get in a fight and have to defend yourself, make sure you wait until you're bruised, bleeding, broken, and/or dying before doing anything to stop the assault.
Posted on 7/14/13 at 2:00 am to bdelarosa7
quote:
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?
This is a very poor description of what happened.
Leaving aside the legal question for a minute, is it really your understanding of the issue that a person walking alone suddenly turned on a person behind him and began attacking him w/ the intent to kill him?
Posted on 7/14/13 at 2:01 am to CHSgc
quote:
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
I thought the defense did a pretty good job of that with the demonstration of what it would look like with someone straddling on top of you and bashing your head into the concrete?
At least from a juror perspective.
Posted on 7/14/13 at 2:01 am to bamaboy87
quote:
Well that settles it then. Folks just drop it and go on home and forget about it. Zimmerman is guilty. He should have waited until his skull was fractured to defend himself. His injuries were not sufficient to defend himself. He has to wait until he is almost dead to defend himself.
So if any of you ever get in a fight and have to defend yourself, make sure you wait until you're bruised, bleeding, broken, and/or dying before doing anything to stop the assault.
This is entirely wrong. GZ was privileged to use non-deadly force to defend himself.
Posted on 7/14/13 at 2:03 am to CHSgc
Looks to me like he was "privileged" to use deadly force too.
Posted on 7/14/13 at 2:03 am to CHSgc
I was responding to your bar fight statement. and how was that poorly constructed.
Posted on 7/14/13 at 2:03 am to CHSgc
quote:
If someone has used deadly force against you you'd expect there to be, you know, some serious damage.
There was. His nose was cracked and he had multiple deep lacerations on the back of his head.
Posted on 7/14/13 at 2:05 am to BluegrassBelle
quote:
I thought the defense did a pretty good job of that with the demonstration of what it would look like with someone straddling on top of you and bashing your head into the concrete?
At least from a juror perspective.
Sorry, I saw you posted earlier and meant to respond.
I can't comment on trial specifics. I know the defense did a good job showing that due to bullet trajectory TM was likely on top of GZ. Why he was there (and the likelihood of what prompted that) is something we'll likely never know. I do know that GZ didn't receive injury that would justify deadly force in almost any other state. Certainly not in SC. FLA has a lot of state specific stuff that I can't comment on w/ any authority, but my initial assessment as a non-criminal defense atty who (at the very least) was semi-recently tested on this stuff to get licensed, is that manslaughter is an almost TEXTBOOK appropriate charge here.
Posted on 7/14/13 at 2:05 am to Roger Klarvin
That's not enough. He needs more injuries to defend himself.
Posted on 7/14/13 at 2:06 am to CHSgc
Maybe GZ couldn't defend himself without the gun. I am not very tall and as such if say a 6'4 person is attacking me, I will have a very hard time defending myself using only my fists. Are you saying I am required to let him injure me to a certain extent before I can use my gun?
Posted on 7/14/13 at 2:08 am to bamaboy87
quote:
Looks to me like he was "privileged" to use deadly force too.
And that's why we have a legal system. It was a question for the jury. One point is that when you have the privilege of deadly force (at common law), it requires that you be w/o fault. You can't be the person who initiates an assault OR provokes the other party. We can argue til we're blue in the face a/b who contacted who, but in my personal opinion it is EXTREMELY unlikely that TM set in motion any sort of events that led to what happened that nite. There is so much circumstantial evidence to the contrary that implicates GZ. But, hey, I didn't prosecute this thing.
Posted on 7/14/13 at 2:09 am to Roger Klarvin
quote:
There was. His nose was cracked and he had multiple deep lacerations on the back of his head.
So much so that he didn't seek medical attention.
LINK
Posted on 7/14/13 at 2:09 am to CHSgc
quote:
a person walking alone suddenly turned on a person behind him and began attacking him
I do not believe that Trayvon "suddenly" turned on Zimmerman - I believe he took the time (4 minutes specifically) to think how he was going to confront this "creepy arse cracker" that was following him. And, at the point of the confrontation, Trayvon felt that the best course of action for himself was to physically assault Zimmerman.
quote:
w/ the intent to kill him
I never said that he had the "intent to kill him", but I do believe he at least had the intent to inflict great bodily harm.
Posted on 7/14/13 at 2:09 am to CHSgc
quote:
Sorry, I saw you posted earlier and meant to respond.
No problem.
quote:
I can't comment on trial specifics. I know the defense did a good job showing that due to bullet trajectory TM was likely on top of GZ. Why he was there (and the likelihood of what prompted that) is something we'll likely never know. I do know that GZ didn't receive injury that would justify deadly force in almost any other state. Certainly not in SC. FLA has a lot of state specific stuff that I can't comment on w/ any authority, but my initial assessment as a non-criminal defense atty who (at the very least) was semi-recently tested on this stuff to get licensed, is that manslaughter is an almost TEXTBOOK appropriate charge here.
I don't deny that the charge shouldn't have been administered FWIW. I just don't see how anyone can come to the conclusion that he should've been labeled guilty given the rather large window of doubt that occurred as a result of a poor case by the prosecution and a pretty strong case by the defense.
It seems to me that our judicial system worked as it should have in rendering a not guilty verdict. I can't bring myself to be upset about that. That's not saying that I think Zimmerman was all sunshine and roses or should be celebrated. Or that I don't feel for Trayvon Martin's parents because frankly whether you agree with the case they have still lost a son and that's a tragedy IMO. Just that the system did what it was supposed to do.
Posted on 7/14/13 at 2:11 am to CheeseburgerEddie
quote:
I was responding to your bar fight statement. and how was that poorly constructed.
Whatever, man. Point for you, I suppose. We'll tally em up eventually.
Posted on 7/14/13 at 2:14 am to CHSgc
I'm not even arguing about the case. I didn't follow it, but your logic about what could make a person fear for their life or "great bodily harm" is seriously flaws IMO.
This post was edited on 7/14/13 at 2:15 am
Posted on 7/14/13 at 2:19 am to bdelarosa7
quote:
I do not believe that Trayvon "suddenly" turned on Zimmerman - I believe he took the time (4 minutes specifically) to think how he was going to confront this "creepy arse cracker" that was following him. And, at the point of the confrontation, Trayvon felt that the best course of action for himself was to physically assault Zimmerman.
This I understand. The point is, and we're going to leave the realm of legal logic here for a minute... why would he assault Zimmerman? And do you think that given what we know a/b Zimmerman that he acted overzealously? Can it be argued w/ any degree of honesty that he acted prudently? At what point do you have to accept culpability for placing yourself in a position to get assaulted? I'm not saying any assault by TM on GZ was warranted, but given what we know do you think that TM's assault, if it happened as we understand it, was random and unjustified? Do you think an appropriate response was deadly force? Again, I'm speaking outside the realm of the law here. I'm just curious what you think from a common sense standpoint.
quote:
I never said that he had the "intent to kill him", but I do believe he at least had the intent to inflict great bodily harm.
Again, this goes back to deadly force v deadly force. There's also the very reasonable assumption that GZ might've assaulted TM first (which modifies the standard for use of deadly force). Certainly he addressed him as a perp. Even so, it's just very unlikely for me to believe that this kid attacked GZ w/ deadly force. This is all speculation, I admit, but that's what's so galling a/b this case: that in order to side w/ GZ you have to make a number of assumptions that defy conventional experience.
Posted on 7/14/13 at 2:21 am to CHSgc
quote:
One point is that when you have the privilege of deadly force (at common law)
Once again, in Florida, it's not a privilege, it's a right.
Also, in Florida as opposed to South Carolina, it's not common law.
Thus, the reason for the clear explanations of the provision. All of your conjecture and mumblings have no bearing on the actual written Florida state law of which Zimmerman abided by.
Posted on 7/14/13 at 2:26 am to BluegrassBelle
quote:
I don't deny that the charge shouldn't have been administered FWIW. I just don't see how anyone can come to the conclusion that he should've been labeled guilty given the rather large window of doubt that occurred as a result of a poor case by the prosecution and a pretty strong case by the defense.
Certainly the abilities of both prosecution and defense are the elephants in the room here. We're all arguing as if we were in their shoes. I don't want to say too much regarding the prosecution b/c I didn't follow the case closely enough to make a judgment on their strategy. Also, I'm not involved in criminal work.
quote:
It seems to me that our judicial system worked as it should have in rendering a not guilty verdict. I can't bring myself to be upset about that. That's not saying that I think Zimmerman was all sunshine and roses or should be celebrated. Or that I don't feel for Trayvon Martin's parents because frankly whether you agree with the case they have still lost a son and that's a tragedy IMO. Just that the system did what it was supposed to do.
In my opinion this is a faulty conclusion. A kid is dead, and it is related to the extraordinarily reckless conduct of what I perceive to be an overzealous citizen. Manslaughter typically controls in situations like this, where the killing is one that comes by way of adequate provocation. Adequate provocation is defined as "being subjected to serious battery or a threat of deadly force."
Page 12 of 18
Popular
Back to top
Follow SECRant for SEC Football News