Reply With Quote
He's got to be a troll.
Nobody can be that stupid.
Dan Abrams is a legal analyst, but you probably know more. Lol
He's got to be a troll.
Nobody can be that stupid.
This is where the rubber meets the road. FOR YOU, that doesn't appear to be the case. TO ME, I think that because the wounds on the back of his head are not consistent with Zimmerman's account, nor does his basis for getting out of the car make one lick of sense, and his proven deception in his bond hearing makes what you think 'appear to be the case' irrelevant. Zimmerman has lied from the get go to cover his ass. That means he doesn't meet the burden of proof for self defense and while he may have no killed without malice he did kill on unreasonable grounds.
But that is the point. As someone else pointed out, this is our opinions. You guys just bluster as if it's some certainty and jerk each other off.
I've looked up the statutes. You going to let him do his thinking or are you actually going to address my rebuttal of presumption. First quote fits you to a T.
Do you deny that Abrams argument depends on that? I will be more than happy to point the sentence that makes it clear.
No need to since the prosecution cannot make a valid case.
/case
a 17 yr old kid being followed and stalked by a armed stranger not thinking rationally....how dare he!!!!
That blog you cited? Lulz
Did Trayvon have any bruises on him besides his knuckles?
In most jurisdictions you would be right; however, in Florida, the prosecution has the burden to show that it was not self defense. I think the prosecution has done a bad job in this regard. They should have gone for manslaughter from the beginning. Truth is they have not really shown evidence for this either. They tried to show evidence of second degree murder and the defense just had better evidence.
That and attorneys that I have talked to. I have a couple very close friends that are attorneys. Unfortunately, I cannot link the law library for you unless you want to pay a good chunk of change to be able to access it.
Here's another:
http://blogs.findlaw.com/blotter/201...e-defense.html
Florida State Attorney Angela Corey announced on Thursday that George Zimmerman had been arrested and would be charged with second degree murder. During that press conference, a reporter asked her about the possible implications of Florida's "Stand Your Ground" law.
In response, she explained that the law provides Zimmerman with an "affirmative defense," and that if it was raised, it would be dealt with in court. She further vowed to fight the "affirmative defense."
What's an affirmative defense?
An affirmative defense is a justification for the defendant having committed the accused crime. It differs from other defenses because the defendant admits that he did, in fact, break the law. He is simply arguing that he has a good reason for having done so, and therefore should be excused from all criminal liability.
In criminal trials, the most common affirmative defenses include self-defense, defense of others and insanity. Duress, entrapment and involuntary intoxication are used less often.
To see how one of these defenses works, let's look at the pending Trayvon Martin trial. George Zimmerman will undoubtedly argue that he acted in self-defense as defined by Florida's "Stand Your Ground" law. There's absolutely no question that he killed Martin. If he can successfully prove he acted in self-defense, the law says he cannot be convicted of murder. He will go free.
One thing to note after the cross exam of the self defense witness. The prosecution essentially conceded that Martin was on top of Zimmerman. Their way of combatting was to pull out the dummy and give alternatives to how Zimmerman could have been on the bottom and still not had sufficient grounds for self defense because Martin might have been getting up when Zimmerman shot him.
If I was the defense I would ask the jury why the prosecution would spend a week trying to give witnesses who were not sure testify that Zimmerman might have been on top. Then concede that it was Martin. Make it look like the prosecution is trying to confuse the jury with random theories unsupported by the facts.
I would then point out that the prosecution is conceding that they do not know what happened. The fact that they suggested that Martin might have been getting up means you must consider that martin might not have been getting up. That is the very definition of reasonable doubt.
In most jurisdictions the burden is on the defendant. For whatever reason, that is not the case in Florida.
I just gave a link indicating that you are wrong. If you want to continue believing the contrary anyway then go right ahead.
Or it could be a guy with a gun who's supposed to be responsible putting himself in a position he had no business being in and then panicking like the inexperienced twit he is.
Even though he was armed and stalking, GZ meant no physical harm. Know what happens when you wrongly assume someone does mean physical harm to you and you initiate violence? You get shot, and the guy who kills/shoots you can reasonably claim self-defense.
The general ethical principle that you are advocating in this particular situation is the same ethics that got Trayvon killed, and probably gets loads of blacks in the inner cities across the nation killed. Physical altercation should be last resort, unless you want to end up dead or in prison.
Could be, but that doesn't make him a murderer. I'd be willing to bet that GZ wishes the whole thing never happened.
I have always used physical altercations as a last resort, when other means do not solve the problem at hand.
From your source with the link where you got to that page which in typical Darrin fashion was completely ignored:
http://legalinsurrection.com/2013/06...-self-defense/Florida has a number of specific statutes relevant to self defense (not all states do, relying instead on case law), the most central of which for this trial will be: 776.013. Home protection; use of deadly force; presumption of fear of death or great bodily harm.
Also, FL 782.02. Justifiable use of deadly force
It seems likely that given the facts of the case the prosecution will also try to apply Florida’s aggressor statute: 776.041. Use of force by aggressor.
Finally, I expect we’ll also see the defense raise Florida’s immunity statute at trial: 776.032. Immunity from criminal prosecution and civil action for justifiable use of force.
The Criminal Charge Against Zimmerman
The above listed self-defense related statutes will find application in establishing Zimmerman’s affirmative defense of self-defense. We do not even get to that point, however, unless the State has managed to prove each and every element, beyond a reasonable doubt, of the crime with which Zimmerman has been charged.
I don't think he's a murderer either. It's not like he premeditated this. He's just a dummy. It's criminal negligence/possibly manslaughter.
Not according to the law. If the jury believes that Zimmerman initiated the confrontation and that he ws full of about getting out of the car to look at a street sign that wasn't even there in a neighborhood he lived in with three streets then he is ed.
Exactly, and you know what? The more people and the media paint the picture that TM's behavior was in perfect line are the same people who are propagating a message that will get a load more people killed. Both GZ and TM acted like morons, and so long as people ignore the latter part, they'll just fuel more racial hate and crime.
Is there ANY evidence that GZ started the fight? Would seem plausible if TM had some injury besides bruised knuckles.
There are currently 2 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 2 guests)
Posting Permissions
