Nanci
Alien Lover
Nothing supports that story. Absolutely nothing.
-
Hello!
Either you have not registered on this site yet, or you are registered but have not logged in. In either case, you will not be able to use the full functionality of this site until you have registered, and then logged in after your registration has been approved.
Registration is FREE, so please register so you can participate instead of remaining a lurker....
Please be certain that the location field is correctly filled out when you register. All registrations that appear to be bogus will be rejected. Which means that if your location field does NOT match the actual location of your registration IP address, then your registration will be rejected.
Sorry about the strictness of this requirement, but it is necessary to block spammers and scammers at the door as much as possible.
Zimmerman trial
- Thread starter Rich Z
- Start date
Nothing supports that story. Absolutely nothing.
Nanci
Alien Lover
Here is the actual law. What part of it seems unreasonable to you?
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 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 titleholder, 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.
Becca, are you comfortable with police telling you to lock yourself in your bedroom, with your 8 month old baby in your arms, with only a rusty scissors for protection, while two guys break in and ransack your house? What if they want to rape or murder you or your child? Is that really okay with you?
Screw that, I'm not.
Nova_C
New member
Nanci, I don't know if it's unreasonable. I'm just trying to understand it.
The judge said that Trayvon Martin had a duty to retreat. And something like a month ago, this woman was given 20 years for firing a shot to ward off her abusive husband.
At what point does stand you ground become a lawful duty to retreat in Florida?
The judge said that Trayvon Martin had a duty to retreat. And something like a month ago, this woman was given 20 years for firing a shot to ward off her abusive husband.
At what point does stand you ground become a lawful duty to retreat in Florida?
beautifullywild77
Go Penguins!!!
Your logic is flawed! Talking circles doesn't change anything.
If TM had a gun and was attacked by GZ, then under the law he would have the right to defend himself.
Chip
ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒ&
I am saddened to agree.
If you really think that is what happened, you did not follow this case at all. A lot of people seem to just know a man shot another man and make up the rest from there.
dave partington
Crazy Dave
I don't have anything personally invested here. I do not know anyone involved, and am not interested in what the media wants to pawn me into doing, increasing their ratings. While like most big media events, which lure in a load of pawns to spend time in front of their electronic devices, stirring up controversy and drama, such media events also help us to ignore what other things are going on in our ever shrinking mainstreamed world. Meanwhile 2 million people are killed every year by the polluters purchasing advertising spacings from the media. http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/07/130712084455.htm the Zimtrial was certainly a convenient focus. Bigger issues are a lot to tackle. I'm sure it'll all figure itself out by 2050.
gsdbecca
New member
Yes, I know that's not what happened in this situation.
Nanci
Alien Lover
I don't think the judge said TM had a duty to retreat. Can you verify that?
You (I've gotta go get a book) cannot exhibit a firearm in a threatening manner unless in necessary self defense. It is not legal to fire a warning shot.
Nova_C
New member
This is so fascinating. There are greys, Nanci. It's not a choice between shooting anyone who makes you feel afraid or letting anyone have their way with you.
I think the notion that if someone claims self-defense, it is up to the prosecution to show beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant did not feel afraid for their life is insane. How do you prove that? It's incredibly hard to 'prove' someone's state of mind.
I think the notion that there is no duty to retreat before engaging lethal force is insane.
And I think concealed (And even open) carry is insane, but that comes from a very different perspective, and I'm never going to convince anyone that it's a bad idea if they do not already think so, so we'll leave that one. I'm just including it as part of my reaction to this case.
Self-defense, even lethal self-defense, is perfectly reasonable. But it should be up to the defendant to prove that there was a legitimate threat to their life, not up to the prosecution to prove that there wasn't.
Nanci
Alien Lover
Do you think innocent until proven guilty is insane?
There was quite a bit of compelling evidence in this case that would indicate he was telling the truth, that his life was in danger, or that he _feared_ his life was in danger. There doesn't even have to be a legitimate threat- he just has to believe there is, and other rational people, putting themselves in his shoes, would also believe there was.
There was quite a bit of compelling evidence in this case that would indicate he was telling the truth, that his life was in danger, or that he _feared_ his life was in danger. There doesn't even have to be a legitimate threat- he just has to believe there is, and other rational people, putting themselves in his shoes, would also believe there was.
Nova_C
New member
Of course not.
Nanci
Alien Lover
Part of the "proof" offered by the defense was the documentation of his injuries, the testimony of a witness who saw him being beaten, right outside his patio door, and the 911 call with the 45 seconds of _someone_ screaming help. The FBI couldn't tell who it was. Most witnesses identified the voice as GZ. Self defense experts testified that his life was in danger. The prosecution did NOT bring any expert self defense witnesses to testify it was not. Why not?
Nanci
Alien Lover
Well, that is how the American legal system works. That is how our laws read. The burden of proof is on the side who claims you broke the law.
Would anyone really want it to be the opposite? You are presumed guilty unless you can prove, beyond a shadow of a doubt, you are not?
Nanci
Alien Lover
No, not okay with me, but I gotta be done. Have to work today, don't see that we're gonna agree on this (and that's okay with me), and I don't want to piss you off too bad in case my hubby ever says I can get another snake. Cause I sure would love a Gartersnake jr.
Let me say one more thing. Did you read about the jurors? They were normal women, just like you and me. BOTH sides agreed upon them. They were mostly moms. Mostly pet owners. How the American legal system works is, we _trust_ those women to listen to all the evidence that is provided to them, and then make a unanimous decision, based on the law that is written and as instructed, by standardized instructions given to any jury anywhere in Florida.
They did their job. We owe them the respect to think that even if it was a very difficult decision, that they acted on the evidence as provided to them, and the law as written in our country.
Nova_C
New member
That's not how affirmative defense works, though. A murder charge is the prosecution proving that the defendant killed the victim. Zimmerman admitted he killed Martin right away, so the prosecution's job was done. However, an acquittal can be rendered if the defense proves that the defendant was in legitimate danger. Except that it seems that's no longer the case. The defense no longer has to prove the defendant was in legitimate danger, the prosecution has to prove that the defendant was not.
As far as Florida law goes, Zimmerman should have been acquitted of all charges. As far as I'm concerned, the murder charge should never have been brought. He should have been charged and convicted of manslaughter.
I don't think Zimmerman set out to kill Martin, but his actions directly led to the outcome. In most States, by what I've been told, that actually doesn't matter and Zimmerman acted appropriately. This is a fundamental difference in the expected behavior of people. I don't think armed civilians should be out trying to prevent crimes from occurring. A person should only act in defense of themselves or others once a threat is made, not because they think someone could be a threat, or looks like someone who might be a threat. Martin did literally nothing to make Zimmerman suspicious of him. Why did Zimmerman feel the need to arm himself and follow Martin?
That question is irrelevant to Florida law, but that's where I guess you guys and I differ. That question should have been the focus of the case.
As far as Florida law goes, Zimmerman should have been acquitted of all charges. As far as I'm concerned, the murder charge should never have been brought. He should have been charged and convicted of manslaughter.
I don't think Zimmerman set out to kill Martin, but his actions directly led to the outcome. In most States, by what I've been told, that actually doesn't matter and Zimmerman acted appropriately. This is a fundamental difference in the expected behavior of people. I don't think armed civilians should be out trying to prevent crimes from occurring. A person should only act in defense of themselves or others once a threat is made, not because they think someone could be a threat, or looks like someone who might be a threat. Martin did literally nothing to make Zimmerman suspicious of him. Why did Zimmerman feel the need to arm himself and follow Martin?
That question is irrelevant to Florida law, but that's where I guess you guys and I differ. That question should have been the focus of the case.