I just call it like I see it. That was a very stupid thing to say and if you notice i do not say that about you. With you I can tell that you say things without having thought it through nor done any research. You have told me you cannot because of your personal life. i consider that understandable.
I dodnt even say Yoni was dumb. i said he cannot be that dumb because to say the least it was not well thought out.
There are quite a few people that say incredibly stupid things over and over again. I point to specifics when i make those claims. there actually are stupid people in this world.
Stand you ground is just a pretrial consideration determined by a judge. From what i understand self defense in and of itself is not precluded. i agree with the latter outcome but really i have no horse in this race. To me its a tragedy that could have been prevented if Florida had vigilante laws. I may not like cops but i like the idea that any yahoo can decide to get a gun and play cop to be even worse.
This tragedy is an example of why.
You misunderstood what I was stating in my cir stance. As a Green Beret soldier once told me "jack of all trades and expert in none."
I just cannot spend countless hours researching every topic.
I do appreciate putting a human element into these posts. Few do and it allows a better engagement of ideas when people do.
From March 24, 2012
Zimmerman’s lawyer: ‘Stand your ground’ doesn’t apply in Trayvon Martin case
Can you point to one statement by anyone representing Zimmerman that claims the "stand your ground" provision of Florida's use of force statute was being relied upon?A lawyer for the man at the center of the Trayvon Martin death investigation said Florida’s “stand your ground” law doesn’t apply to the shooting that killed the unarmed teen.
“In my legal opinion, that’s not really applicable to this case. The statute on ‘stand your ground’ is primarily when you’re in your house,” said Craig Sonner, attorney for George Zimmerman. [Incidentally, I think he's wrong about this. -Y]
“This is self-defense, and that’s been around for forever — that you have a right to defend yourself. So the next issue (that) is going to come up is, was he justified in using the amount of force he did?”
All they've ever claimed is George Zimmerman was exercising his right to defend himself against death or seriously bodily injury.
Stand your ground implies you had a choice to retreat and chose not to -- you chose to stand your ground. So, no, if you never had a chance to make that choice, it's not stand your ground -- it self defense.
The stand your ground provisions were included -- in states where they exist -- to protect people who reasonable believe that retreating from a confrontation will expose them to more harm than if they just stood their ground and fought.
It could be, and I think Zimmerman will probably claim this, that he turned to walk away from Martin (retreat) after the exchange Martin's girlfriend describes hearing on the phone and that Martin attacked him when his back was turned.
That certainly fits the known facts and statements so far.
You're being assaulted from behind. This is what Zimmerman claimed. And, we know this because that's what he said in his statement to police the night of the shooting.
He got rid of that attorney. You miss that part? i don't know what hes claiming one way or another. He hasn't even been arraigned yet.
I don't see how he could claim to have been walking back to his car and have been attacked and not invoke that statute. The again i question the claim that he even said that to begin with. Theres a lot of bull going around and i am to the point that i do not want to hear anything but straight from the horses mouth.
Zimmerman's new attorney, Mark O'Mara, said Zimmerman will plead not guilty and will invoke Florida's powerful "stand your ground" law, which gives people wide leeway to use deadly force without having to retreat in the face of danger.
4 days ago
1) George Zimmerman saw a su ious person in a neighborhood -- his neighborhood, by the way -- that had been experiencing a rash of property crimes.
2) George Zimmerman called 911 and reported the su ious person.
3) George Zimmerman kept 911 on the phone and tried to keep the su ious person in sight.
4) George Zimmerman and Trayvon Martin became involved in a physical altercation that resulted in George Zimmerman shooting Trayvon Martin.
None of us know the facts of what happened between #3 and #4.
There's no indication Zimmerman was acting like a cop or acting like a vigilante.
, if that had been the case, Trayvon Martin might have noticed the gun way before he decided to ask George Zimmerman "What are you following me for?" (according to his girlfriend.)
In fact, if George Zimmerman were a vigilante cop wanna be, I'm surprised he would call 911 at all -- well, at least before the shooting anyway.
When you're calling Zimmerman a vigilante and wanna be cop, you're making characterizations you can't support with any facts.
You don't know what this tragedy is an example of until you know why it happened.
Thanks, I hadn't heard.
But, in reading the story, I still don't see how it fits. I guess we'll hear at trial.
I pulled this from the story to make the point that, even though the Haughwout is correct in saying an aggressor cannot invoke "stand your ground" they can still use deadly force -- even if they started an altercation that results in them having to use that force to save themselves from death or serious bodily injury."If you're the aggressor, you're not protected by this law," said Carey Haughwout, public defender in Palm Beach County.
I don't think the lawyers are about to lay all their cards out there for scrutiny before they need to.
Actually, I missed the part where it was said they were going to invoke "stand your ground."
Actually, I think I got the idea Zimmerman was claiming he was attacked from behind from a March 26 Orlando Sentinel article, based (according to them) on police reports, that said:
So, I guess, in the act of turning around and having the verbal exchange, his attorney is claiming that is stand your ground?In his version of events, Zimmerman had turned around and was walking back to his SUV when Trayvon approached him from behind, the two exchanged words and then Trayvon punched him in the nose, sending him to the ground, and began beating him.
But, I stand corrected, he did not claim he was attacked from behind but, that he was approached from behind.
You're right, it would be hard to claim it if, in fact, the attacked occurred as I had earlier thought.
If the conversation went as the girlfriend described, Trayvon spoke first and, there's nothing saying he didn't speak those words to a George Zimmerman that was walking away.
George Zimmerman could have turned at that point and responded with, "What are you doing here?" (again, as claimed by the girlfriend), at which point -- she claims -- the physical altercation begin.
Zimmerman has injuries consistent with his story.
Martin has no injuries indicating he was struck first.
That wouldn't be prudent.
Oh really? That's interesting then and I agree with that.
...Now I'm convinced there's evidence we don't know about. That's strange. Very strange.
You were just shown what his current attorney is planning on doing. Also i am only going by what do ents i have seen and testimony that I have heard.
Martin's father says in an actual interview that anyone can see that it is his son's voice.
The affidavit claims that Zimmerman initiated the conflict.
Have you seen the coroner's report about Martin and any injuries he had or did not have?
Have you seen the police report that the Orlando Sentinel was told by an unknown source that is supposed to claim that Zimmerman said he was attacked?
Have you heard the testimony of his girlfriend or a police report of the interview with her?
All I see is you using confirmation bias to pick and choose what you want to believe. If it does not corroborate what you want the outcome to be you discount it.
There is so much misinformation, innuendo and straight out bull that i think it is irresponsible to take anything not straight from the horses mouth to be true.
They said they will invoke it. Now that this is going to court, they will use all things that may help their case. This was never initially about stand your ground, but self defense.
For the record, Zimmerman did not call 911. He called the non-emergency line.
There's seem to be a confusion here.
"Stand your ground" is one of the group of statutes that fall within "self-defense" in Florida.
Claiming "Stand your ground" *IS* invoking self-defense. Or, you can elect to claim one of the other statutes that cover the self-defense group of statutues in the state.
Stand your ground is a specific subset of self defense, at least as I take it.
Like a square and rectangle. A square is also a rectangle, but a rectangle is rarely a square.
I'm not confused.
It all falls under Florida's "Justifiable Use of Force" law, Chapter 776 of their statute.
I was mistaken on how I thought Zimmerman described the altercation. I read an early article that I thought said Zimmerman claimed to have been attacked from behind when, in reality, it said Zimmerman claimed he was approached from behind. An important distinction.
Invoking the "stand your ground" provision of the statute implies you had a choice between retreating from and, well, standing your ground in, a confrontation.
In my mistaken understanding of how Zimmerman claimed the altercation began, I didn't think could apply since he was never given the opportunity to make the choice to retreat or stay. The first attorneys' statement the provision didn't apply only tended to support my mistaken belief.
I missed O'Mara's statement of four days ago. But, even so, I think it's going to depend on how long Zimmerman was given to make the choice as to whether or not it still applies. And, the bottom line is, it really doesn't matter if he eventually shot in self-defense anyway.
All the stand your ground provision does then is relieve him of the responsibility of being judged later to have had the obligation to retreat before the confrontation escalated to violence. Which doesn't matter if he didn't even have to time.
Now, in typing this out, it occurs to me O'Mara may be claiming the entire period -- prior to the encounter -- is an act of standing his ground. That Zimmerman, contrary to the affidavit, had no obligation to retreat from attempting to locate a su ious person for police.
Believing Trayvon Martin to be su ious and trying to keep him in sight until Police arrived is not a crime but, I suppose it could be characterized as "standing your ground," particularly since we know how it all ended.
776.013(3)
"(3) a person who is not engaged in an unlawful activity and who is attacked in any other place where he or she has a right to be has no duty to retreat and has the right to stand his or her ground and meet force with force, including deadly force if he or she reasonably believes it is necessary to do so to prevent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the commission of a forcible felony."
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
