Started By
Message
re: Zimmerman not guilty
Posted on 7/14/13 at 2:29 am to CHSgc
Posted on 7/14/13 at 2:29 am to CHSgc
quote:
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."
The problem is how do we know for sure that TM didn't subject GZ to serious battery or a threat of deadly force? If we don't, how can we say that manslaughter was committed and feel comfortable as a juror in potentially putting away someone for a very long time over that charge? Because I'll be honest, if someone had me pinned, straddling me, and beating on me I'd probably think they were trying to kill me. And I could see where a juror could think that it would be appropriate to
I say this working with middle school boys and having broken up fights between them that had enough force that I had concern for adults involved.
1
Posted on 7/14/13 at 2:30 am to bdelarosa7
quote:
Once again, in Florida, it's not a privilege, it's a right.
This makes no difference for what we're talking a/b. It means the same thing.
quote:
Also, in Florida as opposed to South Carolina, it's not common law.
No, wrong. FLA may have (in fact, they do, if I'm reading the stand your ground law correctly) statutory modifications, but FLA operates under common law as well. This isn't Louisiana.
quote:
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.
What provision? And mumblings? LOL.
Posted on 7/14/13 at 2:32 am to CHSgc
quote:
The point is, and we're going to leave the realm of legal logic here for a minute
If we're going to do that, are you going to concede that Zimmerman was not held liable in the eyes of the law of any wrongdoings with the obvious relinquishment of responsibility as a result of the Florida self-defense provision?
quote:I reasonably think he was scared. Mind you, that is not a good enough excuse for assault.
why would he assault Zimmerman?
quote:
And do you think that given what we know a/b Zimmerman that he acted overzealously?
I think if it had been me, it would have been overzealous due to my size and physicality. As for Zimmerman, the defense proved in my mind that he was a physically inferior individual and had he had the ability to defend himself in other means he would have.
quote:I refer you to the above question.
Can it be argued w/ any degree of honesty that he acted prudently?
quote:This is a good question. Culpability can only extend so far. If you want to extend culpability to Zimmerman for getting out of his car at what point is too far? Is he culpable because he joined the neighborhood watch or was out that night? The legal ramifications of extending culpability beyond the aggressor of a physical confrontation would be wide and messy.
At what point do you have to accept culpability for placing yourself in a position to get assaulted?
quote:Yes, this is defined in the law.
Do you think an appropriate response was deadly force?
quote:No...there isn't. There is 0 proof that corroborates this claim. Based off your logic questions you like to use, why would an individual bent on assault of another be on the phone with the police immediately before the said assault?
There's also the very reasonable assumption that GZ might've assaulted TM first
Posted on 7/14/13 at 2:35 am to BluegrassBelle
quote:
The problem is how do we know for sure that TM didn't subject GZ to serious battery or a threat of deadly force?
Even if he did, a manslaughter conviction would still control. Again, to be fair, this is independent of FLA statutory law so there may be some modifications.
quote:
If we don't, how can we say that manslaughter was committed and feel comfortable as a juror in potentially putting away someone for a very long time over that charge?
Well, manslaughter doesn't put someone away for THAT long usually. I mean it's a long time, but it's not life. And I'm assuming the judge has some discretion in sentencing...? However, if you look at it from a public policy standpoint: this man killed another man (independent of any legal analysis) so there is some broad justification for locking him up due to his potential threat level to society.
quote:
Because I'll be honest, if someone had me pinned, straddling me, and beating on me I'd probably think they were trying to kill me. And I could see where a juror could think that it would be appropriate to
Agreed, but did you chase that person down while armed w/ the conjecture that they were conducting illegal activity?
Posted on 7/14/13 at 2:37 am to TbirdSpur2010
Justice wins. God bless America
Posted on 7/14/13 at 2:46 am to bdelarosa7
quote:
If we're going to do that, are you going to concede that Zimmerman was not held liable in the eyes of the law of any wrongdoings with the obvious relinquishment of responsibility as a result of the Florida self-defense provision?
I said from the beginning that purely as a matter of law the jury likely reached the "correct" conclusion, based on my (limited) knowledge of the FLA statute.
quote:
I reasonably think he was scared. Mind you, that is not a good enough excuse for assault.
So scare that he followed TM alone at nite? What sort of sense does that make?
quote:
I think if it had been me, it would have been overzealous due to my size and physicality. As for Zimmerman, the defense proved in my mind that he was a physically inferior individual and had he had the ability to defend himself in other means he would have
Again, the only reason physical size enters the picture is b/c GZ pursued him. This is a moot point if GZ stays in his car. Leaving aside all of that, the fact that GZ was armed is a strong indicator that he might ignore the difference in physical size. I certainly know that the protection a gun affords would make me more willing to confront someone larger than me.
quote:
Yes, this is defined in the law.
I'm not asking a/b law. I'm asking whether or not you think a person should be privileged to use deadly force against an aggresor where they created the circumstances that led to the contact (whoever initiated first, doesn't matter) and where they were not defending their home, their family and possibly (likely) not even their life. For instance, if I as a citizen pursue a person who steals a bike from in front of a store, if that person turns on me to deny my pursuit, should I be able to shoot them if I'm armed? Is this good public policy? Do we want to encourage the avg person to behave this way?
quote:
No...there isn't. There is 0 proof that corroborates this claim. Based off your logic questions you like to use, why would an individual bent on assault of another be on the phone with the police immediately before the said assault?
There is 0 proof b/c the person who would potentially make this claim is dead. We have only one side of the story. No witnesses.
Posted on 7/14/13 at 2:46 am to CHSgc
quote:
No, wrong. FLA may have (in fact, they do, if I'm reading the stand your ground law correctly) statutory modifications, but FLA operates under common law as well. This isn't Louisiana.
WRONG. FLA has codified there self-defense laws as statutes and no longer simply based off of case law.
quote:
What provision?
776.012
quote:
And mumblings?
Referring to your degree of force and extended culpability mumblings.
Posted on 7/14/13 at 2:52 am to bdelarosa7
quote:
WRONG. FLA has codified there self-defense laws as statutes and no longer simply based off of case law.
Yes, but it's based off common law and doesn't make any substantial changes.
GZ was privileged to use deadly force in the event that he was fending off similar deadly force or great bodily harm, just as I noted earlier in this thread.
There's no indication that either was the case. If you look up "great bodily harm" on Westlaw you'll find that it typically refers to dismemberment and prolonged damage to organs, not minor lacerations and a broken nose... certainly not injury that doesn't require immediate medical attn.
Posted on 7/14/13 at 2:58 am to CHSgc
quote:
So scare that he followed TM alone at nite? What sort of sense does that make?
You're initial question was why would Trayvon attack Zimmerman. I responded with Trayvon was more than likely scared.
quote:
This is a moot point if GZ stays in his car
It is irrelevant whether or not he should've stayed in his car. He has every right to get out and pursue a suspicious individual.
quote:This is wrong on two accounts.
I certainly know that the protection a gun affords would make me more willing to confront someone larger than me.
1) There is nothing that leads me to believe that Zimmerman confronted Trayvon, BUT let's say that he did. IF he did confront Trayvon, it is blatantly obvious he did not physically assault him (based off autopsy results) and thus that leaves Trayvon initiating the assault. Verbally confronting an individual does not make them an "aggressor" in a physical confrontation.
2) To assume this line of thinking you have to assume that the individual starting the confrontation would be prepared to brandish their weapon at the onset of physical confrontation so as to hold their advantage over the other individual. That is to assume that this individual would not have waited to be mounted, punched multiple times, and have their head pummeled on concrete to wait to unholster their weapon.
This post was edited on 7/14/13 at 3:02 am
Posted on 7/14/13 at 2:58 am to CHSgc
quote:
if I as a citizen pursue a person who steals a bike from in front of a store, if that person turns on me to deny my pursuit, should I be able to shoot them if I'm armed?
If that person has you pinned to the ground and is assaulting you and you are in fear for your life, then yes
Posted on 7/14/13 at 3:00 am to CHSgc
quote:
If you look up "great bodily harm" on Westlaw you'll find that it typically refers to dismemberment and prolonged damage to organs, not minor lacerations and a broken nose
If the statute was intended to be applied to dismemberment and prolonged to damage to organs only it would have defined it as such.
This post was edited on 7/14/13 at 3:00 am
Posted on 7/14/13 at 3:03 am to bdelarosa7
quote:
It is irrelevant whether or not he should've stayed in his car. He has every right to get out and pursue a suspicious individual.
I'm not actually sure he does. I'd be careful a/b subscribing to this sort of analysis.
quote:
1) There is nothing that leads me to believe that Zimmerman confronted Trayvon, BUT let's say that he did. IF he did confront Trayvon, it is blatantly obvious he did not physically assault him (based off autopsy results) and thus that leaves Trayvon initiating the assault. Verbally confronting an individual does not make them an "aggressor" in a physical confrontation
Yes it can. Assault is the intentional act of another that results in the APPREHENSION of physical contact. You don't have to actually touch someone. And self-defense is justified.
quote:
2) To assume this line of thinking you have to assume that then individual starting the confrontation would be prepared to brandish their weapon at the onset of physical confrontation so as to hold their advantage over the other individual. That is to assume that this individual would not have waited to be mounted, punched multiple times, and have their head pummeled on concrete to wait to unholster their weapon.
No, I'm simply assuming that someone who was smaller than the person they confronted would feel less afraid in confronting that larger person b/c they know they held a "trump card" in the form of a deadly weapon. This is a fairly unobjectionable statement.
Posted on 7/14/13 at 3:04 am to bamaboy87
quote:quote:If that person has you pinned to the ground and is assaulting you and you are in fear for your life, then yes
if I as a citizen pursue a person who steals a bike from in front of a store, if that person turns on me to deny my pursuit, should I be able to shoot them if I'm armed?
This is the right of it.
Posted on 7/14/13 at 3:04 am to CHSgc
quote:
I'm not actually sure he does
I am
Posted on 7/14/13 at 3:05 am to bdelarosa7
quote:
If the statute was intended to be applied to dismemberment and prolonged to damage to organs only it would have defined it as such.
Statutes are defined broadly to encompass many different criteria that cannot conceivably be contemplated and listed by lawmakers. Then, we leave it up to courts to determine the lawmakers' intent. Under most of these determinations, minor lacerations and broken nose do not fit.
Posted on 7/14/13 at 3:07 am to bamaboy87
quote:
If that person has you pinned to the ground and is assaulting you and you are in fear for your life, then yes
Ah yes, no culpability at all for initiating the assault or creating the parameters that led to the assault.
A question then: if someone confronts you in a hostile manner how should you respond? Let's say you're TM and a person instigates verbal contact w/ you in a (presumably) hostile manner (and even if not hostile, in a manner that belies suspicion)? What if you try to retreat and are pursued?
Posted on 7/14/13 at 3:11 am to CHSgc
There is no evidence that he confronted Martin. All the evidence I saw was that Martin made the first confrontation of any kind. To my knowledge, unless I forgot something, even his gf said that she heard him say something to Zimmerman first.
And in that situation I have enough common sense not to punch a guy in the face.
And in that situation I have enough common sense not to punch a guy in the face.
Posted on 7/14/13 at 3:15 am to bamaboy87
quote:
There is no evidence that he confronted Martin. All the evidence I saw was that Martin made the first confrontation of any kind. To my knowledge, unless I forgot something, even his gf said that she heard him say something to Zimmerman first.
This is, quite frankly, ridiculous. Since this doesn't actually deal w/ the legal question I don't mind speculating here. But what you're essentially saying is that a kid minding his own business suddenly wheeled around and assaulted a middle aged gentleman unprovoked... and why? I dunno, b/c that's just what kids do, right? It takes an EXTRAORDINARY amount of cognitive dissonance to reach this sort of conclusion. And you're avoiding what we know of GZ, which is that he set out from his car to tail this kid and from there it's a VERY REASONABLE inference to make that he initiated contact, and likely not in a friendly manner.
This post was edited on 7/14/13 at 3:17 am
Posted on 7/14/13 at 3:16 am to CHSgc
quote:
I'm not actually sure he does. I'd be careful a/b subscribing to this sort of analysis.
Find me the law, and I'll shut-up. Not going to happen.
quote:
Yes it can. Assault is the intentional act of another that results in the APPREHENSION of physical contact. You don't have to actually touch someone. And self-defense is justified.
You realize that verbally confronting someone is not the same as assault. At the point, in this hypothetical situation, Zimmerman were to threaten Trayvon then yes he would be wrong in claiming self-defense. For one, there is no reason that Zimmerman would have verbally assaulted Trayvon at the start. And, secondly, as I have mentioned this is hypothetical for your benefit, I absolutely do not believe that Zimmerman confronted Trayvon at all - there is actual evidence/testimony to the contrary.
quote:
No, I'm simply assuming that someone who was smaller than the person they confronted would feel less afraid in confronting that larger person b/c they know they held a "trump card" in the form of a deadly weapon. This is a fairly unobjectionable statement.
That is unobjectable but I gave you reasons why I refute that concept in this circumstance. Why would we be talking about if we didn't apply it to this circumstance?
Time for bed for me. I am still not sure of your lawyer status. Odds are you're still a student and have a lot to learn.
Posted on 7/14/13 at 3:19 am to bdelarosa7
quote:
Find me the law, and I'll shut-up. Not going to happen.
There are numerous theories under which he could conceivably be prosecuted for tailing someone. They might not all be successful, and none of them can be brought since the witness is dead, but that doesn't preclude them from being conceivable.
quote:
You realize that verbally confronting someone is not the same as assault.
Yes, I do realize that, which is why I clearly stated the law in my original post.
Page 13 of 18
Popular
Back to top
Follow SECRant for SEC Football News