quote:

He has admitted the CRIME.

quote:

ORIGINAL: mnottertail

There is no presumption of innocence. He has admitted the CRIME. Thats a done deal.

The affirmative defense will be necessary to meet the exception in statute, here is Florida's:

quote:

ORIGINAL: kdsub

quote:

Don't buy your denial of Martin's attempted murder of Zimmerman

I pretty much believe it went down at least something like what Zimmerman says but fighting... even banging a head to the ground in my mind would not be attempted murder...where a gun is certainly deadly force in the best of circumstances. I do not believe the kid intended to kill Zimmerman but I do believe Zimmerman intended to kill him.

I think the law is more on trial than Zimmerman.

Butch

quote:

ORIGINAL: mnottertail

There is no presumption of innocence. He has admitted the CRIME. Thats a done deal.

The affirmative defense will be necessary to meet the exception in statute, here is Florida's:

http://www.leg.state.fl.us/Statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&Search_String=&URL=0700-0799/0776/Sections/0776.041.html

He will have to do a 2(a).

Here is a wider legal opinion:

http://www.husseinandwebber.com/florida-law-self-defense-use-of-force.html

But we end up here (in the above link):

In addition to the exception for forcible felonies, self-defense is not available where the evidence establishes that the defendant initially provoked violence against himself. See Section 776.041, Florida Statutes. To claim self-defense in this scenario, the accused must present sufficient evidence that the force used by the alleged victim was so great that the accused reasonably believed that he or she was in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm and that he or she had exhausted every reasonable means to escape such danger other than the use of force which is likely to cause death or great bodily harm to the assailant. Alternatively, the person who provokes the initial attack may nonetheless claim self-defense if: (1) in good faith, he or she withdrew from physical contact, (2) clearly indicated to the other person that he or she desired to withdraw and terminate the use of force, and (3) despite the communication and withdrawal, the other person continued or resumed the use of force.

quote:

ORIGINAL: truckinslave

I have been struck by a thought that I do not think has been discussed.
Much has been said about how opinions about this case seem to break pretty cleanly along racial stereotypes, and along party lines.
But there is a strong element here of the case breaking along lines of personal deference to (government) power.
Those in the lynch mob really believe, at least subconsciously I think, not only that the dispatcher ordered GZ not to follow but also that such order had lawful force behind it. They place real weight- they believe individuals should be subservient to- some guy somewhere who made up a set of "rules" for neighborhood watchers.
Most of us who see this a (possible) self-defense case do not bend the knee either to the dispatcher or the (self-proclaimed?) neighborhood watch pooh-bah. Certainly I see myself following him, and possibly much more aggressively.
The case really does break along the lines of people who want the gummint to take care of them, and the rest of us.

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD
I am sure that you are well enough informed to know that.

quote:

ORIGINAL: kdsub

quote:

Don't buy your denial of Martin's attempted murder of Zimmerman

I pretty much believe it went down at least something like what Zimmerman says but fighting... even banging a head to the ground in my mind would not be attempted murder...where a gun is certainly deadly force in the best of circumstances. I do not believe the kid intended to kill Zimmerman but I do believe Zimmerman intended to kill him.

I think the law is more on trial than Zimmerman.

Butch

quote:

ORIGINAL: mnottertail

There is no presumption of innocence. He has admitted the CRIME. Thats a done deal.

The affirmative defense will be necessary to meet the exception in statute, here is Florida's:

http://www.leg.state.fl.us/Statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&Search_String=&URL=0700-0799/0776/Sections/0776.041.html

He will have to do a 2(a).

Here is a wider legal opinion:

http://www.husseinandwebber.com/florida-law-self-defense-use-of-force.html

But we end up here (in the above link):

In addition to the exception for forcible felonies, self-defense is not available where the evidence establishes that the defendant initially provoked violence against himself. See Section 776.041, Florida Statutes. To claim self-defense in this scenario, the accused must present sufficient evidence that the force used by the alleged victim was so great that the accused reasonably believed that he or she was in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm and that he or she had exhausted every reasonable means to escape such danger other than the use of force which is likely to cause death or great bodily harm to the assailant. Alternatively, the person who provokes the initial attack may nonetheless claim self-defense if: (1) in good faith, he or she withdrew from physical contact, (2) clearly indicated to the other person that he or she desired to withdraw and terminate the use of force, and (3) despite the communication and withdrawal, the other person continued or resumed the use of force.

quote:

If you notice, my first response is a lawsuit, using profiling as a civil rights violation. Considering the way the courts are going these days, I would either come out rich beyond my wildest dreams, or owning the court money, my bet is on getting everything the asshole has.

quote:

You beleive this and that about various persons' motivations. You were not inside their heads at the moment and there is no evidence to support your beliefs. Glad you are not on the jury, Butch.

quote:

ORIGINAL: truckinslave

I have been struck by a thought that I do not think has been discussed.
Much has been said about how opinions about this case seem to break pretty cleanly along racial stereotypes, and along party lines.
But there is a strong element here of the case breaking along lines of personal deference to (government) power.
Those in the lynch mob really believe, at least subconsciously I think, not only that the dispatcher ordered GZ not to follow but also that such order had lawful force behind it. They place real weight- they believe individuals should be subservient to- some guy somewhere who made up a set of "rules" for neighborhood watchers.
Most of us who see this a (possible) self-defense case do not bend the knee either to the dispatcher or the (self-proclaimed?) neighborhood watch pooh-bah. Certainly I see myself following him, and possibly much more aggressively.
The case really does break along the lines of people who want the gummint to take care of them, and the rest of us.

quote:

The statutes you link to and quote apply pre-trial only and, in fact, the article in the second link you posted says: "Where the defendant in a Florida criminal case presents any evidence of self-defense (which Zimmerman did pre-trial), the State must overcome the claim of self-defense beyond a reasonable doubt."

quote:

ORIGINAL: Owner59

Well, George starting out at his car and ending up just behind the kids home tells normal folks that he closed the distance between them.......ie pursued him.



Here`s a good instructional video about CWC.



They don`t have a political agenda or a dog in the fight regarding Zimmerman`s killing..... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Iz8AL9X0Oq4


What they say in the 1st minute should be made into a daily prayer. Advice that George should have taken.

quote:

ORIGINAL: truckinslave

That's all you've got?
That we should all pray never to have to use one?
GZ probably prayed that; as have I.
I've also prayed never to need one and not have it; and that if I ever have to use one that I do so as effectively as I have trained.

I bet GZ- in spite of the past year- thanks God every day that he had his gun with him the night TM attacked him.