Zimmerman

[Harlowe]

I don't believe it's about size, at least not in so far as I'm comparing it. It's about the maturity and expectation of an adult vs. teen in a heightened or stressful situation. Like our legal guidelines vary when considering juvenile vs. adult. It's not due to size but reasonable expectations of their intellect and maturity. Of course a judge can decide to try a juvenile as an adult, but that's based on the crime, their history, their demeanor etc. Not size and strength.

[Torakus]

No argument there. I am simply referring to the folks who keep making the argument that Zimmerman had nothing to fear because he is a grown man and this was just a 150 lb kid.

Thankfully the judge won't be forced to try Zimmerman as a juvenile, even though at almost 30 he demonstrated the maturity of a 10 year old.

[Embar Angylwrath]

One clarification. If his defense attorney can show that the stand your ground law was applicable here, then he walks on everything, even manslaughter. The law is silent about the circumstances leading up to the use of deadly force. All its says is you're justified in using deadly force and have no duty to retreat if you feel you are in imminent harm of great bodily injury.

If Zimmerman was getting his ass handed to him, no matter that he may have contributed to it, and he felt he was going die or get serioulsy injured, he's justified under Florida statute to kill the person threatening him.

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 circumstances permitted pursuant to s. 776.013.

If the defense can show Martin was getting the better of Zimmerman in a fight, and those screams on tape are Zimmermans, then Zimmerman has an easy walk.

[Lurker]

One clarification. If his defense attorney can show that the stand your ground law was applicable here, then he walks on everything, even manslaughter. The law is silent about the circumstances leading up to the use of deadly force. All its says is you're justified in using deadly force and have no duty to retreat if you feel you are in imminent harm of great bodily injury.
...
If the defense can show Martin was getting the better of Zimmerman in a fight, and those screams on tape are Zimmermans, then Zimmerman has an easy walk.

The source you are parroting needs to read the rest of the statute. The law is not silent about the circumstances leading up to the use of deadly force.

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.

So... Zimmermann would have to convince a jury that he didn't cause the confrontation, which he clearly did. If he can't convince the jury that Martin caused the fight Zimmermann will have to convince them that he thought he was going to die or be seriously injured and that he exhausted every reasonable means to escape Martin.

I can understand taking a wait and see approach to all this. What I can't understand is the knee-jerk defense of a man we all agree instigated the confrontation and is likely guilty of voluntary manslaughter.

[Torakus]

What I can't understand is the knee-jerk defense of a man we all agree instigated the confrontation and is likely guilty of voluntary manslaughter.

I think that might be a big part of Embar's point. There is no way for anyone to know if he actively provoked the confrontation, though I think he probably did. We don't know if he continued to "aggressively" hang back and stalk him, or if he got in his face and asked him what he was doing there. But I don't think either of those would actually meet the spirit of provocation in this case. While speech and presence can be provocative, I don't think they would be able to make the case (to professional jurors) that they meet the spirit intended by that law. The good thing in this case for the prosecution is that they probably won't have to worry about differentiating spirit from black letter to a jury of Zimmerman's peers.

Tora

[Lurker]

Embar thought the law didn't mention or consider circumstances leading up the the use of deadly force. He was mistaken. And that's a pretty important provision of the law to be ignorant about.

There is no way for anyone to know if he actively provoked the confrontation, though I think he probably did.

It sounds like you agree with the that Zimmerman "instigated the confrontation and is likely guilty of voluntary manslaughter". Not that it's proven, but that it's what we think happened. So I find it odd that someone would rush to the boards to post a defense of him and launch an attack on the DA and the mother.

[Harlowe]

Odd, but not unexpected. When Fox/Drudge immediately went to his defense and attempted to vilify the victim, I was positive Embar would parrot that.

[Kulaf]

Embar thought the law didn't mention or consider circumstances leading up the the use of deadly force. He was mistaken. And that's a pretty important provision of the law to be ignorant about.

The issue is the "unless" portion you didn't highlight:

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.

Zimmerman's testimony is that he withdrew and was walking back to his car when he was attacked from behind. That then reverses the role of who is the agressor.

[Lurker]

The issue is the "unless" portion you didn't highlight:

I didn't underline it, but I did include the whole section in my quote. I agree that the case will hinge on that "unless" portion in the provision Embar's sources didn't know existed.

[Garrdor]

black kid prolly attacked him. trespassings illegal, if u dont like it leave the USA. too bad the kid wasnt BORACK HUSSIEN OSAMA

they're just trying to infringe on my 2nd amendment. ITS MY handheld glock 18 full-auto with extended clip. i need it to protect myself from being attacked/robbed by blacks, gays, and pedophiles

[Ddrak]

Zimmerman's testimony really doesn't pass the "believable" test, much less the "telling a consistent story" test from what I can see. Unless he sorts that shit out, jury won't believe him at all.

Dd

[Kulaf]

My issue with all of this is one of politics. First when presented with the information the local DA said there was not enough evidence to even get a conviction on a charge of manslaughter. Then a state attorney says that a grand jury will be convened to hear the evidence and decide if it will go forward. Then a separate state attorney gets put on the case by the governer and the grand jury is out and her office alone will decide if the case goes forward and suddenly there is belief that they can get a conviction on a charge of 2nd degree murder. It just smacks of caving in to pressure.

The eye witness accounts are totally conflicting and they will just offset each other. Martin is dead and cannot offer input in the trial. Zimmerman has a busted nose and a laceration on the back of his head which all jive with his account of what happened. Now unless there is going to be some forensic evidence in the form of a recreation of how the shot was fired and from what angle and where the two were standing.......how is there enough evidence here to get a conviction?

[Harlowe]

I'm fairly confident that if there isn't enough evidence to convict him, he won't be convicted no matter the politics or public outcry. Look at Casey Anthony.

[Embar Angylwrath]

Embar thought the law didn't mention or consider circumstances leading up the the use of deadly force. He was mistaken. And that's a pretty important provision of the law to be ignorant about.

There is no way for anyone to know if he actively provoked the confrontation, though I think he probably did.

It sounds like you agree with the that Zimmerman "instigated the confrontation and is likely guilty of voluntary manslaughter". Not that it's proven, but that it's what we think happened. So I find it odd that someone would rush to the boards to post a defense of him and launch an attack on the DA and the mother.

My source was wikipedia... shame on me for using that and thanks for pointing out the section of law that goes to provocation.

@Harlowe - I'm not defending Zimmerman. Neither am I condemning him, as it seems you are doing without knowing all the facts in the case. At worst, Zimmerman is a calculating and cold individual that orchestrated this entire thing just so he could put a bullet in a 17 year old kid. (And I don't buy that). At best, he's a buffoon with some mental issues that got himself into a situation that could have been avoided, and which quickly escalated to the point where tragically, a 17 year old kid lost his life. With the evidence currently at hand, I lean more towards that series of events.

[Raelesyn]

I'd like to know what Florida's law is for carrying a loaded firearm in public? Is it like Texas where its permitted? All in all small potato's in the grand scheme of this tragedy. But why was he carring a loaded firearm? Why wasn't he charged also with discharging a firearm unlawfully? Did Trayvon reach for his gun and there was a struggle for it? If he wasn't carrying a loaded firearm this wouldn't be where it is now.

[Embar Angylwrath]

Florida is a Shall Issue state, meaning if you meet the requirements, Florida must issue you a conceal/carry firearm permit. There are restricions where you can carry.. like police stations, court rooms, etc. Open carry is prohibited in all places in Florda.

[Harlowe]

You posted this thread to begin with Embar (with your judgements) while the rest of us seemed to be doing the wait and see thing.

I've said all along that I want justice to prevail no matter the situation is. My opinions were based on what evidence has been put forth so far. You have been parrotting Fox news.

[Embar Angylwrath]

My issue with all of this is one of politics. First when presented with the information the local DA said there was not enough evidence to even get a conviction on a charge of manslaughter. Then a state attorney says that a grand jury will be convened to hear the evidence and decide if it will go forward. Then a separate state attorney gets put on the case by the governer and the grand jury is out and her office alone will decide if the case goes forward and suddenly there is belief that they can get a conviction on a charge of 2nd degree murder. It just smacks of caving in to pressure.

The eye witness accounts are totally conflicting and they will just offset each other. Martin is dead and cannot offer input in the trial. Zimmerman has a busted nose and a laceration on the back of his head which all jive with his account of what happened. Now unless there is going to be some forensic evidence in the form of a recreation of how the shot was fired and from what angle and where the two were standing.......how is there enough evidence here to get a conviction?

No doubt this case has been politicized. When you have Obama making statemetns about how if he had a son, he'd look like Trayvon (wtf was that all about), and a member of Congress making statements on the floor in a grey hoodie.. it doesn't get more polticized than that.

You even have NBC (I think it was NBC) selectively editing audioo to make it appear Zimmerman had a racial bias that wasn't supported from the real recordings. Nothing like using a major network to enflame those out there that see this a racially motivated killing. That was completey reckless on NBC's part.

The handlng of the case seems to be fueled in large part by politics. When the police determine no cause for arrest, and the State AG department upholds that deciion, then to appoint a special prosecutor that avoides a grand jury... that all smacks of politics. Wheter Zimmerman did something illegal or something stupid, if the case is being pursued for political reasons, then it mocks Trayvon's death.

[Embar Angylwrath]

Wow, jokingly I thought "I bet Embar is whining in his inner circles about how unfairly Zimmerman is being treated in the LIBRUL MEDIA". I didn't however think you'd post about it.

What the hell did Martin do wrong to be followed by this asshole anyway? What illegal activity was Martin participating in. Martin was the one entitled to the "stand your ground" protection, fending off some asshole that was following just because he was a black kid in a hoody. Did you listen to what a bigoted, itching to fight asshole he was on that call? And they did tell him "we don't need you to do that" whether that's a dispatcher or the police doesn't matter, he was told it wasn't something they needed him to do. But he was out to get this guy. A guy doing nothing but "looking suspicious" to him.

Zimmerman has a violent, criminal past and shouldn't have even been carrying that gun to begin with.

I know you're going to grasp at straws for reasons why Zimmerman is the victim here, because that's EXACTLY how Fox news has been trying to play it and you are in lock step with them. I reserved judgement waiting to hear everything coming out about this and the more that comes out, the more guilty he looks.

It wasn't Zimmerman calling the cops about being followed by some suspicious black kid.

I don't know Harlowe, doesn't sound too much to me that you're keeping an open mind here. From your post, you seem to have already convicted Zimmerman. When you use terms like "asshole", "bigoted, itching to fight asshole"... that doesn't sound like an impartial mind to me.

Oh, and as for your "parroting Fox" comments...

http://www.talkleft.com/story/2012/4/15/51611/4068

These are the same issues I've brought to board, and only AFTER Zimmerman was charged with 2nd Degree. My analysis is more that 2nd Degree doesn't seem to apply here, notht at he isn't guily of something (I suggested manslaughter as the seemingly more appropriate charge, given what we know)

[Raelesyn]

LOL just asking here but is anyone here a Lawyer/Attorney?