Reply With Quote
So what? Maybe they both feared for their lives. Unfortunately, Zimmerman had a gun. So no matter what a piece of Zimmerman may be and no matter if Travon was not doing anything wrong, it seems Zimmerman was acting within the law.
No one said he was good at fighting.
Yeah, Martin was doing just that.If you're getting your ass kicked and you believe you're about to be killed or seriously injured, you have the right to use whatever force necessary to end the assault.
Thanks counselor.
Thanks, counselor.
So what? Maybe they both feared for their lives. Unfortunately, Zimmerman had a gun. So no matter what a piece of Zimmerman may be and no matter if Travon was not doing anything wrong, it seems Zimmerman was acting within the law.
No one said he even assaulted Martin.
So, you contend it was Martin getting his ass kicked? Where's your evidence?
No one saw any initial assault.
He was trying to end the assault with all necessary force.So, you contend it was Martin getting his ass kicked? Where's your evidence?
You're right.
What assault? You just said no one saw Zimmerman assault Martin.
you said it was ok to defend yourself if you're in fear of serious injury or death.
martin did the best he could to defend his life. tuff business when you're gunned by a guy that stalked you down.
So you're wrong.
But you said Martin assaulted Zimmerman.What assault? You just said no one saw Zimmerman assault Martin.
You were wrong.
I really hope the Prosecutors lead with this reasoning...
There is absolutely zero evidence Martin's life was in danger before he started beating Zimmerman's head against the concrete.
There is absolutely zero evidence Martin even knew Zimmerman was armed before he broke his nose, jumped him, and started wailing on him MMA-style.
There is absolutely zero evidence to support your version of events. None.
No, we're both right. No one saw any initial assault.
He did.
No.
I didn't mean a cop at this incident, obviously he would have been in the right. What I ment was what type of this guy would run if he was a cop.
Last edited by The_Worlds_finest; 05-24-2012 at 05:13 PM.
No, you're wrong.
May have only been using necessary force to stop an assault.He did.
Yes.No.
You just want to turn the unknowns into Zimmerman's favor because you are horribly biased.
How so?
The only assault witnessed was Martin's on Zimmerman. For all we know, that was the initial assault.
Where's your evidence Zimmerman was the first to assault Martin?
The knowns are in Zimmerman's favor. The unknowns are unknown.
For all we know, it was a response to an inital assault.
There is as much evidence he initiated the assault as there is Martin's initiating the assault.Where's your evidence Zimmerman was the first to assault Martin?
yoni is in Zimmerman's favor, therefore yoni makes all the unknowns in Zimmerman's favor.The knowns are in Zimmerman's favor. The unknowns are unknown.
mma style lol
Gents, What is zimmermans defense?
Here is the stand your ground law.
Florida
2011 Florida Statutes CHAPTER 776 JUSTIFIABLE USE OF FORCE[22]
776.012 Use of force in defense of person.—A person is justified in using force, except deadly force, against another when and to the extent that the person reasonably believes that such conduct is necessary to defend himself or herself or another against the other’s imminent use of unlawful force. However, a person is justified in the use of deadly force and does not have a duty to retreat if:
(1) He or she reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the imminent commission of a forcible felony; or (2) Under those cir stances permitted pursuant to s. 776.013.
776.013 Home protection; use of deadly force; presumption of fear of death or great bodily harm.—
(1) A person is presumed to have held a reasonable fear of imminent peril of death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another when using defensive force that is intended or likely to cause death or great bodily harm to another if:
(a) The person against whom the defensive force was used was in the process of unlawfully and forcefully entering, or had unlawfully and forcibly entered, a dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle, or if that person had removed or was attempting to remove another against that person’s will from the dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle; and (b) The person who uses defensive force knew or had reason to believe that an unlawful and forcible entry or unlawful and forcible act was occurring or had occurred.
(2) The presumption set forth in subsection (1) does not apply if:
(a) 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, such as an owner, lessee, or leholder, and there is not an injunction for protection from domestic violence or a written pretrial supervision order of no contact against that person; or (b) The person or persons sought to be removed is a child or grandchild, or is otherwise in the lawful custody or under the lawful guardianship of, the person against whom the defensive force is used; or (c) The person who uses defensive force is engaged in an unlawful activity or is using the dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle to further an unlawful activity; or (d) The person against whom the defensive force is used is a law enforcement officer, as defined in s. 943.10(14), who enters or attempts to enter a dwelling, residence, or vehicle in the performance of his or her official duties and the officer identified himself or herself in accordance with any applicable law or the person using force knew or reasonably should have known that the person entering or attempting to enter was a law enforcement officer.
(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.
(4) A person who unlawfully and by force enters or attempts to enter a person’s dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle is presumed to be doing so with the intent to commit an unlawful act involving force or violence.
(5) As used in this section, the term:
(a) “Dwelling” means a building or conveyance of any kind, including any attached porch, whether the building or conveyance is temporary or permanent, mobile or immobile, which has a roof over it, including a tent, and is designed to be occupied by people lodging therein at night. (b) “Residence” means a dwelling in which a person resides either temporarily or permanently or is visiting as an invited guest. (c) “Vehicle” means a conveyance of any kind, whether or not motorized, which is designed to transport people or property.
776.032 Immunity from criminal prosecution and civil action for justifiable use of force.—
(1) A person who uses force as permitted in s. 776.012, s. 776.013, or s. 776.031 is justified in using such force and is immune from criminal prosecution and civil action for the use of such force, unless the person against whom force was used is a law enforcement officer, as defined in s. 943.10(14), who was acting in the performance of his or her official duties and the officer identified himself or herself in accordance with any applicable law or the person using force knew or reasonably should have known that the person was a law enforcement officer. As used in this subsection, the term “criminal prosecution” includes arresting, detaining in custody, and charging or prosecuting the defendant.
(2) A law enforcement agency may use standard procedures for investigating the use of force as described in subsection (1), but the agency may not arrest the person for using force unless it determines that there is probable cause that the force that was used was unlawful.
(3) The court shall award reasonable attorney’s fees, court costs, compensation for loss of income, and all expenses incurred by the defendant in defense of any civil action brought by a plaintiff if the court finds that the defendant is immune from prosecution as provided in subsection (1).
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.
Actually, there's no such thing as a Florida "Stand Your Ground" law. You've posted a portion of the state's justifiable use of force statute.
I believe Zimmerman is claiming he is "776.012...justified in the use of deadly force and does not have a duty to retreat..." because, "(1) He or she reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself..."
Incidentally, at the time Zimmerman claims he used deadly force, he was unable to retreat even if he had wanted to.
To the extent his defense will invoke the stand your ground provision of the law, I think it will pertain to him not having an obligation to 1) stop following a su ious person and, 2) retreat when he finally encountered Martin.
Not sure why people keep using this one when the investigator already said that the concrete head-bashing part didn't happen at the bond hearing.
Well, whatever he was having his head bashed against, caused a severe laceration and contusions to the back of his head.
But, in what report did the investigator say this?
lol severe
Did the cuts require s ches?
This is what happens when someone who desperately wants to be a god damn action hero has a gun and acts irresponsibly. I don't know if he's racist or not and I don't care because it really doesn't matter.
they were too severe for s ches. they had to grow an extra scalp on a mouses ear.
Concussions don't require s ches.
he didn't have one of those either.
Actually, the best information we have says Zimmerman was responding to an assault, not Martin.
Not true.
Injuries to Zimmerman indicate he was assaulted. Martin has no such injuries.
The knowns are already in his favor.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions