Zimmerman Case - Lightning Rod

[EL PRESIDENTE]

This was not a Stand Your Ground case, but one of Self-Defense, as stated above. Zimmerman had to make a split decision, he had no ground to stand on since he was pinned down getting beat down by young Trayvon Martin.

 

[RoyToy]

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/23/nyregion/23trial.html?_r=3&

No big deal.

 

[EL PRESIDENTE]

YEAH, TOTALLY SAME CASE BRO.

 

[Denny Crane]

This was not a Stand Your Ground case, but one of Self-Defense, as stated above. Zimmerman had to make a split decision, he had no ground to stand on since he was pinned down getting beat down by young Trayvon Martin.

Ah, but it was a stand your ground case in the sense that the jury instructions were stand your ground language:

If George Zimmerman was not engaged in an unlawful activity and was attacked in anyplace where he had a right to be, he had no duty to retreat and had the right to stand his ground and meet force with force, including deadly force if he reasonably believed that it was necessary to do so to prevent death or great bodily harm to himself or another or to prevent the commission of a forcible felony.

Otherwise, self defense is rarely successful when the victim is unarmed, and a requirement for self defense claim is there is a duty to retreat from the dangerous situation.

http://legalinsurrection.com/2013/06/zimmerman-case-the-five-principles-of-the-law-of-self-defense/

The principle of Proportionality refers to the notion that the degree of force you may use in self-defense must be proportional to the degree of force with which you are threatened. Briefly, a non-deadly threat may only be countered with a non-deadly defense. A threat capable of causing death or grave bodily harm (e.g., a broken bone, blinding, a rape) may be met with deadly force.

Usually, the use of deadly force against an unarmed attacker is fatal to a claim of self defense. If you nevertheless wants to argue self defense you will have to convince the court that the unique circumstances warranted your use of deadly force despite the fact that the attacker was unarmed.

...

The principle of Avoidance refers to the notion that you should not use force in self-defense if you can avoid the need to do so by making use of a safe avenue of retreat.

 

[RoyToy]

YEAH, TOTALLY SAME CASE BRO.

Self-defense. Feared for their lives.

 

[EL PRESIDENTE]

Self-defense. Feared for their lives.

YEAH. LIKE I SAID, EXACT SAME CIRCUMSTANCES

 

[EL PRESIDENTE]

Ah, but it was a stand your ground case in the sense that the jury instructions were stand your ground language:

Otherwise, self defense is rarely successful when the victim is unarmed, and a requirement for self defense claim is there is a duty to retreat from the dangerous situation.

if Trayvon was on top of him beating his head into the ground, he could not retreat. This was not a stand your ground case, otherwise that portion would have been argued pre-trial and it wasn't.

 

[Denny Crane]

if Trayvon was on top of him beating his head into the ground, he could not retreat.

He should never have left his car.

He was a vigilante, out to be police, judge, jury, and executioner all on the same night.

 

[RoyToy]

YEAH. LIKE I SAID, EXACT SAME CIRCUMSTANCES

With different outcomes.

Interesting.

 

[PapaG]

Ah, but it was a stand your ground case in the sense that the jury instructions were stand your ground language:



Otherwise, self defense is rarely successful when the victim is unarmed, and a requirement for self defense claim is there is a duty to retreat from the dangerous situation.

http://legalinsurrection.com/2013/06/zimmerman-case-the-five-principles-of-the-law-of-self-defense/

The principle of Proportionality refers to the notion that the degree of force you may use in self-defense must be proportional to the degree of force with which you are threatened. Briefly, a non-deadly threat may only be countered with a non-deadly defense. A threat capable of causing death or grave bodily harm (e.g., a broken bone, blinding, a rape) may be met with deadly force.

Usually, the use of deadly force against an unarmed attacker is fatal to a claim of self defense. If you nevertheless wants to argue self defense you will have to convince the court that the unique circumstances warranted your use of deadly force despite the fact that the attacker was unarmed.

...

The principle of Avoidance refers to the notion that you should not use force in self-defense if you can avoid the need to do so by making use of a safe avenue of retreat.

It wasn't a SYG case. Even the prosecution didn't claim it was, nor did the FBI.

 

[PapaG]

He should never have left his car.

He was a vigilante, out to be police, judge, jury, and executioner all on the same night.

Well, that's your opinion. Good thing you weren't on the jury. Otherwise a man defending his life would be going to prison.

 

[Denny Crane]

It wasn't a SYG case. Even the prosecution didn't claim it was, nor did the FBI.

LOL. The jury instructions say otherwise. These words are the actual instructions given by the judge to the jury upon sequester. Read the underlined part.

If George Zimmerman was not engaged in an unlawful activity and was attacked in anyplace where he had a right to be, he had no duty to retreat and had the right to stand his ground and meet force with force, including deadly force if he reasonably believed that it was necessary to do so to prevent death or great bodily harm to himself or another or to prevent the commission of a forcible felony.

 

[Denny Crane]

Well, that's your opinion. Good thing you weren't on the jury. Otherwise a man defending his life would be going to prison.

Bullshit.

 

[EL PRESIDENTE]

He should never have left his car.

He was a vigilante, out to be police, judge, jury, and executioner all on the same night.

Leaving his car is not a crime. He had no legal duty to remain in his car. This is not the "stand down" portion of anything and doesn't relate to the shooting AT ALL.

He was not a vigilante. He was patrolling the neighborhood and came across someone he thought was suspicious. He was walking to investigate further. He was attacked. He had to defend himself.

Nothing presented deviates from that point of view. No civil rights were violated.

 

[EL PRESIDENTE]

With different outcomes.

Interesting.

oh yeah. so interesting.

 

[RoyToy]

oh yeah. so interesting.

Go ahead. Gloss over what's right in front you. I understand.

 

[Denny Crane]

Leaving his car is not a crime. He had no legal duty to remain in his car. This is not the "stand down" portion of anything and doesn't relate to the shooting AT ALL.

He was not a vigilante. He was patrolling the neighborhood and came across someone he thought was suspicious. He was walking to investigate further. He was attacked. He had to defend himself.

Nothing presented deviates from that point of view. No civil rights were violated.

"he was patrolling the neighborhood" which is what vigilantes do. Otherwise POLICE patrol neighborhoods.

vig·i·lan·te

One who takes or advocates the taking of law enforcement into one's own hands.

 

[PapaG]

LOL. The jury instructions say otherwise. These words are the actual instructions given by the judge to the jury upon sequester. Read the underlined part.

This wasn't a "Stand Your Ground" case.

 

[PapaG]

"he was patrolling the neighborhood" which is what vigilantes do. Otherwise POLICE patrol neighborhoods.

vig·i·lan·te

One who takes or advocates the taking of law enforcement into one's own hands.

He called the police. Not sure how that means he was taking the law into his own hands.

Vigilantes don't call the police. Maybe you should retry the case, since you seem to have all of the answers.

 

[EL PRESIDENTE]

Go ahead. Gloss over what's right in front you. I understand.

what, a different incident with a different set of circumstances?

unlicensed handgun
eye witnesses to refute the defendant's story
the defendant menaced the weapon at the group of kids
dead kid tried to get the gun out of the defendant's hand without accosting him.
Defendant claims it was an accidental shooting, not self defense

Yeah. Same set of circumstances.

I'm not surprised you missed this all, you seem to only read the headlines in stories. which would explain your stance on the Zimmerman case.

 

[PapaG]

what, a different incident with a different set of circumstances?

unlicensed handgun
eye witnesses to refute the defendant's story
the defendant menaced the weapon at the group of kids
dead kid tried to get the gun out of the defendant's hand without accosting him.
Defendant claims it was an accidental shooting, not self defense

Yeah. Same set of circumstances.

I'm not surprised you missed this all, you seem to only read the headlines in stories. which would explain your stance on the Zimmerman case.

Low Info Voters are 'experts' on the Zimmerman case, apparently. Reading Denny's bullshit, I'm guessing he didn't even follow the trial. Then again, he voted for Jerry Brown.

Nobody who followed this trial can say with a straight face that the prosecution proved intent to kill. No one. Not even the prosecutor, who had to rely on "feelings" instead of logic for his closing argument, and came across as an idiot in doing so.

 

[EL PRESIDENTE]

"he was patrolling the neighborhood" which is what vigilantes do. Otherwise POLICE patrol neighborhoods.

vig·i·lan·te

One who takes or advocates the taking of law enforcement into one's own hands.

he did not take law enforcement into his hands. he was well within his rights as a citizen to see what was going on. He did not arrest anyone. He did not point his gun at someone outside the scope of using it out of self defense, and only as a last resort.

by your definition, you yelling at people outside of your house to be quiet makes you a vigilante.

 

[EL PRESIDENTE]

Low Info Voters are 'experts' on the Zimmerman case. Reading Denny's bullshit, I'm guessing he didn't even follow the trial. Then again, he voted for Jerry Brown.

BUT SOMEONE MADE IT A MEME ON FACEBOOK, IT MUST BE TRUE. I DON'T NEED TO READ OR UNDERSTAND, I JUST NEED TO POST IT AND PEOPLE WILL NOT QUESTION ME! :MARIS61:

 

[EL PRESIDENTE]

He called the police. Not sure how that means he was taking the law into his own hands.

Vigilantes don't call the police. Maybe you should retry the case, since you seem to have all of the answers.

Well, he obviously violated Trayvon's civil right to....uhh.....yeah.

 

[RoyToy]

what, a different incident with a different set of circumstances?

unlicensed handgun
eye witnesses to refute the defendant's story
the defendant menaced the weapon at the group of kids
dead kid tried to get the gun out of the defendant's hand without accosting him.
Defendant claims it was an accidental shooting, not self defense

Yeah. Same set of circumstances.

I'm not surprised you missed this all, you seem to only read the headlines in stories. which would explain your stance on the Zimmerman case.

Family feared for their lives. Used self-defense to eliminate the threat.

 

[PapaG]

Family feared for their lives. Used self-defense to eliminate the threat.

What does this have to do with George Zimmerman shooting a young man who was pummeling him for no reason?

 

[PapaG]

The ironic part about all of this is that Zimmerman was a liberal Obama supporter who actually took action against white Sanford police officers after they beat a black homeless man senseless in 2010.

Fucking racists...

Hopefully George learned his lesson and now knows he's not in the 'right' minority constituency for racists like Holder and Obama.

 

[EL PRESIDENTE]

Family feared for their lives. Used self-defense to eliminate the threat.

uhh...no. they didn't argue self-defense at all. they said "it was an accident".

but other than that huge glaring difference which makes all of the difference in the world and was the central argument in Zimmerman's defense...good analogy.

 

[PapaG]

uhh...no. they didn't argue self-defense at all. they said "it was an accident".

but other than that huge glaring difference which makes all of the difference in the world and was the central argument in Zimmerman's defense...good analogy.

Low Info Voters are hilarious to me in the silly arguments they make. It makes me sad that they have a vote to cancel out the votes of rational people, though.

 

[RoyToy]

uhh...no. they didn't argue self-defense at all. they said "it was an accident".

but other than that huge glaring difference which makes all of the difference in the world and was the central argument in Zimmerman's defense...good analogy.

Out of control people trespassing on his property in the middle of the night threatening great bodily harm to his family. Family was scared for their lives. He made sure it didn't happen.