RE: Zimmerman Trial - LIVE

RE: Zimmerman Trial - LIVE (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

Message

truckinslave -> RE: Zimmerman Trial - LIVE (6/29/2013 9:40:20 PM)
quote: The person against whom the defensive force is used has the right to be in or is a lawful resident of the dwelling, residence, or vehicle, Well, for starters, they were not in a dwelling, or a residence, or a vehicle

truckinslave -> RE: Zimmerman Trial - LIVE (6/29/2013 9:43:22 PM)
No reasonable person can believe Zimmerman provoked force against himself. There is not a suggestion, much less evidence, that anything he did merited the use of violence against himself.

truckinslave -> RE: Zimmerman Trial - LIVE (6/29/2013 9:46:06 PM)
quote: (he will or not testify do you think?) I think not. I even think it could be a directed verdict at the conclusion of the prosecution's "case".

truckinslave -> RE: Zimmerman Trial - LIVE (6/29/2013 9:55:24 PM)
Great link. I especially like this from Stinson v. State: That the attacker sustained a mortal wound is a matter that should have been considered by the deceased before he committed himself to the task he undertook. The following from Dorsey v. State should go a long way toward eliminating the wishful drivel of a second-degree murder charge: Florida courts have held that an impulsive overreaction to an attack or injury is itself insufficient to prove ill will, hatred, spite, or evil intent.

truckinslave -> RE: Zimmerman Trial - LIVE (6/29/2013 10:06:24 PM)
quote: I believe he did want to kill this boy... Why? Racism? After taking on the town PD on behalf of a black homeless stranger? A violent streak? After years of carrying a gun, of being on neighborhood watch, he just suddenly decided he wanted to kill someone, and Trayvon was handy? Or did he suddenly decide he "wanted to kill" this "boy"? Out of all the people on earth, some malicious desire welled up in him, a desire to kill this person? He didn't like his grill? He hates people who eat Skittles? quote: I believe he did want to kill this boy... Please. I'm genuinely baffled as to why you believe that. As to why anyone could believe he had a desire to just up and kill this stranger. I don't have those desires, and I certainly am unaware of knowing people who have, much less succumb to, a sudden "want to kill".

truckinslave -> RE: Zimmerman Trial - LIVE (6/29/2013 10:16:54 PM)
quote: I think he panicked and just wanted Martin to back off. That's called self-defense. Fl statute clearly says the threat of death need not be real.

truckinslave -> RE: Zimmerman Trial - LIVE (6/29/2013 10:25:04 PM)
quote: Note that in not insane states those trivial injuries from a fist fight would not be enough to justify a claim of reasonable fear of imminent death or grievous bodily harm which is the standard for lethal self defense. The standard usually involves some variant of "what would a reasonable man do in those same circumstances". We here in WV often find that reasonable people shoot those who attack them. I think a WV jury would find for a defendant who shot his attacker if he was being "grounded and pounded" and the attacker went for his victim's gun. I don't even think we'd be out long. "Don't throw the first punch" is pretty good advice up here

DomKen -> RE: Zimmerman Trial - LIVE (6/29/2013 10:26:46 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: jlf1961 Uh, Actually no, if my intent was detain you until LEOS arrived, there is no crime. Unless I had committed a crime it would certainly be kidnapping or unlawful imprisonment.

DomKen -> RE: Zimmerman Trial - LIVE (6/29/2013 10:30:44 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: truckinslave quote: I think he panicked and just wanted Martin to back off. That's called self-defense. Fl statute clearly says the threat of death need not be real. No, but it does have to meet the reasonable man standard. Panicking and shooting fails the reasonable man standard.

DarkSteven -> RE: Zimmerman Trial - LIVE (6/29/2013 10:31:22 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: truckinslave No reasonable person can believe Zimmerman provoked force against himself. There is not a suggestion, much less evidence, that anything he did merited the use of violence against himself. Wrong approach. You're trying to hypothesize scenarios, with very thin evidence. The burden is on the prosecution to prove that Zimmerman was NOT acting in self defense. It's almost impossible at this point. The star witness has proven to provide nothing to go on, the other witnesses show a muddle, and Zimmerman's testimony has stood thus far.

truckinslave -> RE: Zimmerman Trial - LIVE (6/29/2013 10:31:40 PM)
quote: The lead prosecutor will likely lose his job after this case Her. At least I think it's still Angela Corey. I think she was pretty much ordered to prosecute this regardless of the weakness of the case, so I suspect the effect on her career will be minimal. Silk purse, sow's ear and all that. Of course, a prosecutor with ethics would have refused to prosecute this even under threat of termination.

DomKen -> RE: Zimmerman Trial - LIVE (6/29/2013 10:36:15 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: truckinslave quote: Note that in not insane states those trivial injuries from a fist fight would not be enough to justify a claim of reasonable fear of imminent death or grievous bodily harm which is the standard for lethal self defense. The standard usually involves some variant of "what would a reasonable man do in those same circumstances". We here in WV often find that reasonable people shoot those who attack them. I think a WV jury would find for a defendant who shot his attacker if he was being "grounded and pounded" and the attacker went for his victim's gun. I don't even think we'd be out long. "Don't throw the first punch" is pretty good advice up here Keep in mind that a judge has to allow you to bring an affirmative defense so if you simply shot some guy who punched you, you could very well be denied the ability to claim self defense or even mention that you were struck etc. Also if there is a struggle over a weapon then the shooting isn't self defense. You defense then would be to establish that you did not have full control of the weapon when the shot was fired. You could get off completely or wind up convicted of something like negligent homicide but without the state of mind for murder or the intent you should be able to avoid a murder conviction.

DomKen -> RE: Zimmerman Trial - LIVE (6/29/2013 10:37:19 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DarkSteven quote: ORIGINAL: truckinslave No reasonable person can believe Zimmerman provoked force against himself. There is not a suggestion, much less evidence, that anything he did merited the use of violence against himself. Wrong approach. You're trying to hypothesize scenarios, with very thin evidence. The burden is on the prosecution to prove that Zimmerman was NOT acting in self defense. It's almost impossible at this point. The star witness has proven to provide nothing to go on, the other witnesses show a muddle, and Zimmerman's testimony has stood thus far. When did Zimmerman testify?

truckinslave -> RE: Zimmerman Trial - LIVE (6/29/2013 10:37:37 PM)
I'd be saying Zimmerman shouldn't have been straddling the man trying to fracture his skull against the cement.

truckinslave -> RE: Zimmerman Trial - LIVE (6/29/2013 10:46:09 PM)
quote: The duty to retreat is not removed because you got bumped in the knees. There is no such duty at either the Florida or federal level (if there was such a federal requirement, and it was Constitutional, all SYG laws would be trumped immediately).

truckinslave -> RE: Zimmerman Trial - LIVE (6/29/2013 10:48:01 PM)
quote: Under the struggle for the gun argument he can't argue self defense That's the definition of a desperate self-defense situation

truckinslave -> RE: Zimmerman Trial - LIVE (6/29/2013 10:53:40 PM)
quote: The difference is that when I confront the person following me, he is going to be looking down the barrel of a 1911 .45ACP, That would break several important WV statutes, starting with "wanton endangerment".

jlf1961 -> RE: Zimmerman Trial - LIVE (6/29/2013 10:55:58 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: truckinslave quote: The difference is that when I confront the person following me, he is going to be looking down the barrel of a 1911 .45ACP, That would break several important WV statutes, starting with "wanton endangerment". Works in Texas, and many western states for that matter, as long as the intent is to hold the person till local law enforcement arrives.

truckinslave -> RE: Zimmerman Trial - LIVE (6/29/2013 11:02:30 PM)
I've been in similar situations. My move is to give them the opportunity to pass me while I keep an eye on them. Suddenly walk in front of a car, perhaps. turn around so I am now facing them while I put my shoe on the car bumper to tie it. Duck into a store entrance to look at something in the entrance, then turn around quickly. Something, anything, that can be construed as innocent by an innocent man, and understood as defensive by someone with evil on his mind. All actions to be undertaken after reaching under my clothing or in my pocket as though to check my gun. Of course, if I was 17 and fit and the man following me a fat pasty fuck I would just outwalk/outrun him unless I wanted to double back and attack.

truckinslave -> RE: Zimmerman Trial - LIVE (6/29/2013 11:04:30 PM)
quote: Actually no, if my intent was detain you until LEOS arrived, there is no crime. Are you serious? In what state?

Page: << < prev 27 28 [29] 30 31 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.0625