Zimmerman Case - Lightning Rod (3 Viewers)

Welcome to our community

Be a part of something great, join today!

Register Log in
3RA1N1AC said:
You think a cop gives a fuck about a pimp? Listen. Every pimp in the world gets shot. Two in the back of the fucking head. Cops throw a party, man.
Click to expand...

How many cups of sugar per Kool Aid packet?
 
tlongII said:
It had nothing to do with Stand Your Ground.
Click to expand...

True self defense requires you to retreat vs. stand your ground, you don't get away with it except in rare cases if you shoot an unarmed person.

Read the jury instructions.

The second paragraph is ALL stand your ground.

In deciding whether George Zimmerman was justified in the use of deadly force, you must judge him by the circumstances by which he was surrounded at the time the force was used. The danger facing George Zimmerman need not have been actual; however, to justify the use of deadly force, the appearance of danger must have been so real that a reasonably cautious and prudent person under the same circumstances would have believed that the danger could be avoided only through the use of that force. Based upon appearances, George Zimmerman must have actually believed that the danger was real.

If George Zimmerman was not engaged in an unlawful activity and was attacked in any place 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.
 
^^^^ when I wrote true, I meant as has been the case for 1,000 years of common law.
 
Denny Crane said:
True self defense requires you to retreat vs. stand your ground, you don't get away with it except in rare cases if you shoot an unarmed person.

Read the jury instructions.

The second paragraph is ALL stand your ground.

In deciding whether George Zimmerman was justified in the use of deadly force, you must judge him by the circumstances by which he was surrounded at the time the force was used. The danger facing George Zimmerman need not have been actual; however, to justify the use of deadly force, the appearance of danger must have been so real that a reasonably cautious and prudent person under the same circumstances would have believed that the danger could be avoided only through the use of that force. Based upon appearances, George Zimmerman must have actually believed that the danger was real.

If George Zimmerman was not engaged in an unlawful activity and was attacked in any place 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.
Click to expand...

Denny, TM was sitting on his chest. He couldn't retreat if he wanted to. It had nothing to do with Stand Your Ground.
 
Denny Crane said:
^^^^ when I wrote true, I meant as has been the case for 1,000 years of common law.
Click to expand...

The Constitution is a tad newer, and guarantees the right to use whatever deadly force may be necessary to stand your ground in self-defense.

What part of Liberty involves having to run and hide every time some thug threatens you?
 
I WILL SHOOT A DOG IN THE WOODS I AM NOT AFRAID THOUGH I AM QUITE VIRILE AND MASCULINE
 
tlongII said:
Denny, TM was sitting on his chest. He couldn't retreat if he wanted to. It had nothing to do with Stand Your Ground.
Click to expand...

He didn't retreat, he followed the kid. He was armed, to boot.

You do see stand your ground, those very words, in the jury instructions, right?

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

Proportionality—The “Goldilocks” Principle (Just Right)

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.
 
Denny Crane said:
Learn something.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duty_to_retreat
Click to expand...

Read your own link, then post.

The duty to retreat is not universal, however. For example, police officers are not required to retreat when acting in the line of duty. Similarly, some courts have found no duty to retreat exists when a victim is assaulted in a place where the victim has a right to be, such as within one's own home.[1] The Model Penal Code[2] suggests statutory language that also recognizes an exception to the usual duty to retreat when the victim of the attack is in his or her own dwelling or place of work. It is common to exempt a person's home or car from the duty to retreat, known as the castle doctrine.

Many states employ stand your ground laws that do not require an individual to retreat and allow one to match force for force, deadly force for deadly force. The Washington State Supreme Court, for example, has ruled "that there is no duty to retreat when a person is assaulted in a place where he or she has a right to be."
 
MARIS61 said:
The Constitution is a tad newer, and guarantees the right to use whatever deadly force may be necessary to stand your ground in self-defense.

What part of Liberty involves having to run and hide every time some thug threatens you?
Click to expand...

You don't have to run and hide, unless you're a black child in Florida.

You don't shoot an unarmed man if you have some sort of beef with the guy, or vice versa.
 
MARIS61 said:
Read your own link, then post.

The duty to retreat is not universal, however. For example, police officers are not required to retreat when acting in the line of duty. Similarly, some courts have found no duty to retreat exists when a victim is assaulted in a place where the victim has a right to be, such as within one's own home.[1] The Model Penal Code[2] suggests statutory language that also recognizes an exception to the usual duty to retreat when the victim of the attack is in his or her own dwelling or place of work. It is common to exempt a person's home or car from the duty to retreat, known as the castle doctrine.

Many states employ stand your ground laws that do not require an individual to retreat and allow one to match force for force, deadly force for deadly force. The Washington State Supreme Court, for example, has ruled "that there is no duty to retreat when a person is assaulted in a place where he or she has a right to be."
Click to expand...

You read it. If you are in your home, place of business, or stopping an ongoing crime.

None of that in play here.

BTW, that's the castle doctrine, as in a man's home is his castle.
 
The Supreme Court of the United States ruled in Beard v. U.S. (158 U.S. 550 (1895)) that a man who was "on his premises" when he came under attack and "...did not provoke the assault, and had at the time reasonable grounds to believe, and in good faith believed, that the deceased intended to take his life, or do him great bodily harm...was not obliged to retreat, nor to consider whether he could safely retreat, but was entitled to stand his ground."[2][3]

Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr. declared in Brown v. United States (1921) (256 U.S. 335, 343 (16 May 1921)), a case that upheld the "no duty to retreat" maxim, that "detached reflection cannot be demanded in the presence of an uplifted knife".
 
Denny Crane said:
You read it. If you are in your home, place of business, or stopping an ongoing crime.

None of that in play here.

BTW, that's the castle doctrine, as in a man's home is his castle.
Click to expand...

He was at his place of work, he was in a place where he had a legal right to be, he was in his own neighborhood (a gated community) and he was being murdered. I'm sure you would have handled the situation differently than he did but maybe you have no reason to live. He has a family he chose to live for. Can't fault him for that.

The jury read the jury instructions that you keep telling everyone to read, and they found no reason at all to help the media and race-carders persecute him any longer.
 
Denny Crane said:
You read it. If you are in your home, place of business, or stopping an ongoing crime.

None of that in play here.

BTW, that's the castle doctrine, as in a man's home is his castle.
Click to expand...

Right above your post, you quoted this:

The Washington State Supreme Court, for example, has ruled "that there is no duty to retreat when a person is assaulted in a place where he or she has a right to be."
 
"HELP ME IM BEING MURDERED!" said the guy with a gun in his hand
 
This is just one of the strange parts about Zimmerman's story

As I headed back to my vehicle the suspect emerged from the darkness and said, 'You got a problem?'" When Zimmerman answered "No," the suspect said, "You do now."
Click to expand...

Isn't that just so convenient, lol. I'm sure it played out exactly like that.

You followed him for a block and had a police officer sent out for him. You really want me to believe you said "no" when he asked you if you have a problem? That's how it went down?

He's a lying cocksucker. Story is filled with holes and has been inconsistent from the start.
 
MARIS61 said:
He was at his place of work, he was in a place where he had a legal right to be, he was in his own neighborhood (a gated community) and he was being murdered. I'm sure you would have handled the situation differently than he did but maybe you have no reason to live. He has a family he chose to live for. Can't fault him for that.

The jury read the jury instructions that you keep telling everyone to read, and they found no reason at all to help the media and race-carders persecute him any longer.
Click to expand...

You keep posting stuff it looks like you don't read yourself.

The Supreme Court of the United States ruled in Beard v. U.S. (158 U.S. 550 (1895)) that a man who was "on his premises" when he came under attack


What part of "on his premises" means "anywhere in the world he can claim as his (utter bullshit) place of business.
 
MARIS61 said:
Right above your post, you quoted this:

The Washington State Supreme Court, for example, has ruled "that there is no duty to retreat when a person is assaulted in a place where he or she has a right to be."
Click to expand...

And?

Washington state has a stand your ground law.

http://theolympiareport.com/washington-one-of-31-states-with-stand-your-ground-law/

The court is supposed to rule on its laws.

EDIT:
http://apps.leg.wa.gov/RCW/default.aspx?cite=9A.16.050


RCW 9A.16.050
Homicide — By other person — When justifiable.

Homicide is also justifiable when committed either:

(1) In the lawful defense of the slayer, or his or her husband, wife, parent, child, brother, or sister, or of any other person in his or her presence or company, when there is reasonable ground to apprehend a design on the part of the person slain to commit a felony or to do some great personal injury to the slayer or to any such person, and there is imminent danger of such design being accomplished; or

(2) In the actual resistance of an attempt to commit a felony upon the slayer, in his or her presence, or upon or in a dwelling, or other place of abode, in which he or she is.


[2011 c 336 § 354; 1975 1st ex.s. c 260 § 9A.16.050.]
 
RoyToy said:
This is just one of the strange parts about Zimmerman's story



Isn't that just so convenient, lol. I'm sure it played out exactly like that.

You followed him for a block and had a police officer sent out for him. You really want me to believe you said "no" when he asked you if you have a problem? That's how it went down?

He's a lying cocksucker. Story is filled with holes and has been inconsistent from the start.
Click to expand...

The only inconsistencies are with the state. You may not believe his story but there is nothing that refutes it.


hoop fam
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 4 (members: 0, guests: 4)
Back
Top