quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

quote:

ORIGINAL: vincentML

quote:

The standard is always the reasonable person standard. The Florida law on self defense says the aggressor has a more stringent requirement before it is legally self defense.

According to several quoted details of a Florida appellate ruling all Zimmerman has to do is claim self defense and unless some evidence contradicts his claim beyond a reasonable doubt he gets away with it.

So what am I mischaracterizing?

Glad to see you are starting to come around. What you don't yet get is that the jury will be charged to consider the self defense argument from Zimmerman's point of view at the moment he reacted. The Law cited earlier says the burden is on the state. Nothing about an aggressor. In your dreams only.

The Florida self defense statute makes clear that the aggressor has a higher burden than an innocent before he can use lethal force. It seems reasonable to me that the jury instructions will contain that fact if the prosecution attempts to establish Zimmerman was the aggressor.

quote:

but, imo, the burglaries were done by tenants/tenants teenagers and the HOA should have put in a policy of requiring HOA approval of any new tenants

quote:

ORIGINAL: Raiikun

quote:

ORIGINAL: Politesub53

quote:

ORIGINAL: Raiikun

quote:

ORIGINAL: Politesub53

I wonder what the "beyond reasonable doubt" crowd would be saying if Martin, being where he legally had a right to be, had shot Zimmerman and claimed the same defence.

Given the same evidence but in Martin's favor, it would be a clear cut acquittal as well.

You are now getting it, Martin had every right to defend himself from an unknown stranger.

George is the one on trial. What is relevant is if George was right to defend himself from someone causing multiple head injuries against the pavement.

The law and evidence overwhelmingly point to 'yes'.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Raiikun

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

quote:

ORIGINAL: vincentML

quote:

The standard is always the reasonable person standard. The Florida law on self defense says the aggressor has a more stringent requirement before it is legally self defense.

According to several quoted details of a Florida appellate ruling all Zimmerman has to do is claim self defense and unless some evidence contradicts his claim beyond a reasonable doubt he gets away with it.

So what am I mischaracterizing?

Glad to see you are starting to come around. What you don't yet get is that the jury will be charged to consider the self defense argument from Zimmerman's point of view at the moment he reacted. The Law cited earlier says the burden is on the state. Nothing about an aggressor. In your dreams only.

The Florida self defense statute makes clear that the aggressor has a higher burden than an innocent before he can use lethal force. It seems reasonable to me that the jury instructions will contain that fact if the prosecution attempts to establish Zimmerman was the aggressor.

The only additional burden being the aggressor adds is easily met by George being on the ground. Jenkins vs. State makes that cleat.

quote:

No. The law says to apply the reasonable man standard. A reasonable man does not fear for his life during a fistfight even if he is losing. That's why it was so important for the defense to get all that inadmissible character assassination into the media before the trial began. They need the jury to believe that martin was an incredibly violent thug who was literally trying to kill Zimmerman.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Raiikun

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

You're misrepresenting those instructions.

Untrue.

quote:

Ill will and/or evil intent is what will get Zimmerman if he is convicted. He certainly had ill will towards Martin. He thought Martin was a burglar. If he is determined to have been the legal aggressor that shows evil intent.

Suspicion is not ill will, not even close.

And of course, self defense has to be negated beyond a reasonable doubt before the jury can go on to consider if ill will, hatred, or spite is proven.

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

quote:

ORIGINAL: Raiikun

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

You're misrepresenting those instructions.

Untrue.

quote:

Ill will and/or evil intent is what will get Zimmerman if he is convicted. He certainly had ill will towards Martin. He thought Martin was a burglar. If he is determined to have been the legal aggressor that shows evil intent.

Suspicion is not ill will, not even close.

And of course, self defense has to be negated beyond a reasonable doubt before the jury can go on to consider if ill will, hatred, or spite is proven.

You keep leaving off evil intent. That is misrepresentation of the standard.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Raiikun

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

quote:

ORIGINAL: vincentML

quote:

The standard is always the reasonable person standard. The Florida law on self defense says the aggressor has a more stringent requirement before it is legally self defense.

According to several quoted details of a Florida appellate ruling all Zimmerman has to do is claim self defense and unless some evidence contradicts his claim beyond a reasonable doubt he gets away with it.

So what am I mischaracterizing?

Glad to see you are starting to come around. What you don't yet get is that the jury will be charged to consider the self defense argument from Zimmerman's point of view at the moment he reacted. The Law cited earlier says the burden is on the state. Nothing about an aggressor. In your dreams only.

The Florida self defense statute makes clear that the aggressor has a higher burden than an innocent before he can use lethal force. It seems reasonable to me that the jury instructions will contain that fact if the prosecution attempts to establish Zimmerman was the aggressor.

The only additional burden being the aggressor adds is easily met by George being on the ground. Jenkins vs. State makes that cleat.

quote:

ORIGINAL: vincentML

quote:

but, imo, the burglaries were done by tenants/tenants teenagers and the HOA should have put in a policy of requiring HOA approval of any new tenants

Jesus! How the fuck do you KNOW that?? No trial testimony. Nothing in the article. Desperately making shit up.[8|]

quote:

ORIGINAL: vincentML

quote:

ORIGINAL: Raiikun

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

quote:

ORIGINAL: vincentML

quote:

The standard is always the reasonable person standard. The Florida law on self defense says the aggressor has a more stringent requirement before it is legally self defense.

According to several quoted details of a Florida appellate ruling all Zimmerman has to do is claim self defense and unless some evidence contradicts his claim beyond a reasonable doubt he gets away with it.

So what am I mischaracterizing?

Glad to see you are starting to come around. What you don't yet get is that the jury will be charged to consider the self defense argument from Zimmerman's point of view at the moment he reacted. The Law cited earlier says the burden is on the state. Nothing about an aggressor. In your dreams only.

The Florida self defense statute makes clear that the aggressor has a higher burden than an innocent before he can use lethal force. It seems reasonable to me that the jury instructions will contain that fact if the prosecution attempts to establish Zimmerman was the aggressor.

The only additional burden being the aggressor adds is easily met by George being on the ground. Jenkins vs. State makes that cleat.

The aggressor at the MOMENT of self-defense by definition was Martin. Zimmerman cannot be the self-defender and the aggressor at the same time. It is an idiotic presumption.

quote:

Chapter 776: JUSTIFIABLE USE OF FORCE

776.041 Use of force by aggressor.—

The justification described in the preceding sections of this chapter is not available to a person who:

(1) Is attempting to commit, committing, or escaping after the commission of, a forcible felony; or

(2) Initially provokes the use of force against himself or herself, unless:

(a) Such force is so great that the person reasonably believes that he or she is in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm and that he or she has 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; or

(b) In good faith, the person withdraws from physical contact with the assailant and indicates clearly to the assailant that he or she desires to withdraw and terminate the use of force, but the assailant continues or resumes the use of force.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Raiikun

Even the Florida Supreme Court case I linked earlier just referred to 'ill will, hatred, or spite', leaving off evil intent.

quote:

ORIGINAL: vincentML

quote:

No. The law says to apply the reasonable man standard. A reasonable man does not fear for his life during a fistfight even if he is losing. That's why it was so important for the defense to get all that inadmissible character assassination into the media before the trial began. They need the jury to believe that martin was an incredibly violent thug who was literally trying to kill Zimmerman.

Nope, the Law gives the benefit of reasonableness to what the self defender was thinking. And the burden to overcome it goes to the state. You are grasping for straws.

quote:

ORIGINAL: vincentML

quote:

No. The law says to apply the reasonable man standard. A reasonable man does not fear for his life during a fistfight even if he is losing. That's why it was so important for the defense to get all that inadmissible character assassination into the media before the trial began. They need the jury to believe that martin was an incredibly violent thug who was literally trying to kill Zimmerman.

Nope, the Law gives the benefit of reasonableness to what the self defender was thinking. And the burden to overcome it goes to the state. You are grasping for straws.

quote:

ORIGINAL: tj444

quote:

ORIGINAL: vincentML

quote:

but, imo, the burglaries were done by tenants/tenants teenagers and the HOA should have put in a policy of requiring HOA approval of any new tenants

Jesus! How the fuck do you KNOW that?? No trial testimony. Nothing in the article. Desperately making shit up.[8|]

I did state it was my opinion, or is that something not allowed on this forum all of a sudden?

"Police found Demeacis's laptop in the backpack of 18-year-old Emmanuel Burgess, police reports show, and charged him with dealing in stolen property. Burgess was the same man Zimmerman had spotted on February 2.
Burgess had committed a series of burglaries on the other side of town in 2008 and 2009, pleaded guilty to several, and spent all of 2010 incarcerated in a juvenile facility, his attorney said."

quote:

ORIGINAL: vincentML
The aggressor at the MOMENT of self-defense by definition was Martin. Zimmerman cannot be the self-defender and the aggressor at the same time. It is an idiotic presumption.

quote:

I don`t think one could convince a jury that walking up to a group of scary bikers with a gun, asking questions like you were a cop (but wasn`t )and getting your ass kicked, causing you to kill one.....is reasonable and normal and not provocative.

quote:

That's not how I read that law.
The way I saw it, "the aggressor" is the person that actually started the altercation, not necessarily the one 'at the moment' as per your description.

quote:

There is no benefit to anyone from the reasonable man standard. The jury is only to consider what the putative reasonable man would do or think in said situation. That is why it is such an important part of criminal law.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reasonable_person

quote:

ORIGINAL: vincentML

quote:

I don`t think one could convince a jury that walking up to a group of scary bikers with a gun, asking questions like you were a cop (but wasn`t )and getting your ass kicked, causing you to kill one.....is reasonable and normal and not provocative.

reposted from my post 423

If a defendant was not engaged in an unlawful activity and was attacked where he or she was allowed to be, then the defendant has no duty of retreat and has a right to use force, or even deadly force, if the defendant (under those circumstances) reasonably believed that his or her use of force was necessary to prevent death or great bodily harm. This is the key provision of Florida’s “Stand your Ground” law.

In determining whether the use of deadly force or non-deadly force was warranted, a jury will look at the facts and circumstances as they appeared to the defendant at the time he or she claims to have acted in self-defense. The jury will examine what a reasonable person would have done under the circumstances appearing to the defendant at the time of the incident. This inquiry into what a “reasonable person” would have done is known as an “objective standard.”

Where the defendant in a Florida criminal case presents any evidence of self-defense, the State must overcome the claim of self-defense beyond a reasonable doubt.

The defendant is entitled to a jury instruction on self-defense in Florida when there is any evidence to support the claim. This is a low standard and even a “scintilla” of evidence will be sufficient, even if the self-defense theory is extremely weak or improbable. Self-defense may even be inferred from the State’s evidence without the Defendant or a defense witness ever taking the stand.

SOURCE IS A FLORIDA LAW FIRM