George Zimmerman

[poppy]

He also said he used the gun because Martin saw it in its holster on his waist. So his waist was visible and his arms were free.

[ChocolateReignRemix]

Exactly. He left his car armed with a loaded gun that had the safety off. He got out of his car ready to kill. The ME, Detective Serino and others testified that his injuries were not consistent with a fight for his life. He didn't receive stitches, he didn't go to the hospital. He went to work the next day (one of his main concerns that night, which was surprising to Serino). Would a reasonable person conclude that he was he in a fight for his life? That is the question.

 

eta:

 

The questions stands whether it was reasonable for Zimmerman believe he had to shoot and kill Martin to avoid imminent death or great bodily harm. Sure, being punched in the nose hurts, but it isn't imminent death or great bodily harm.

 

Detective Serino felt Zimmerman was exaggerating the manner in which he was hit. Serino told the FBI that Zimmerman's story seemed scripted. When Zimmerman told Serino what happened, Serino told his that WAS following.

 

While Zimmerman said he was looking for an address at the request of the dispatcher, Serino testified that there were addresses on the front of the homes *and* there is no such request from the 911 operator. Serino testified that there had NOT been a crime spree, but Zimmerman believed there had been. There is *one minute* between the time Martin's phone call ends and when the shot was fired. There were only a few seconds between the time the phone call ended and the first 911 call happened. Zimmerman lied about knowing self-defense law because he knew it would make him look bad. Zimmerman told his friend that Martin grabbed his gun. Why? Because he didn't want to appear guilty of shooting an unarmed, non-burglarizing teenager for no reason. Zimmerman was hiding money, speaking "in code" with his wife, and she's been charged with perjury as a result. We KNOW Zimmerman has lied, and we KNOW he encouraged his wife to lie under oath. You can't pretend he hasn't lied or that he wasn't paranoid and stalking (in the vernacular sense) an unarmed teenager.

 

Does it make sense that Martin hit Zimmerman "dozens" of times, was bashing Zimmerman's head against the sidewalk, covering Zimmerman's mouth and reaching for (and/or grabbing, depending upon his changing story) Zimmerman's gun...in a one minute time frame? But, there is no bruising on Martin's hands after hitting someone "dozens" of times? Does it make sense that Martin jumped out of non-existent bushes and started beating Zimmerman *while he was still on the phone*? Does it make sense that Zimmerman was *not* following Martin, but he wanted officers to call him upon their arrival because he didn't know where he would be?

 

Zimmerman wasn't profiling Martin but complained about the "f'ing punks" and "a--holes" who always get away and referred to him as "the suspect" for no other reason than walking through his dad's neighborhood while on the phone?

I don't believe he referred to him as a "suspect" until the police interviews. At that time, he was referring to a person he says physically assaulted him. Why would "suspect" be out of line?

 

If someone is on top of you striking you in the head, is it unreasonable to believe you could be in danger of serious bodily harm? Remember, you do not have to be injured first to have that reasonable belief.

 

I can tell from your post you didn't follow the trial testimony closely. Did you pay attention to the pathologist who stated that the bruising/swelling on Martin's hands would not have been evident due the short duration between the time of the blows and his blood pressure dropping due to the gunshot? Or that the bruising could have been found inside his hands if the ME had looked during the autopsy? Did you note that the state did not follow routine procedures in preserving evidence (bagging the hands, not trying to fingerprint at the scene, not discarding the blanket that covered the body, not bagging the clothing while wet, etc)?

 

Did you miss the testimony about it being common to carry the firearm with one in the chamber (from the state's own witness)?

 

I love how you conveniently don't mention called Zimmerman's story "credible" and also testified that inconsistencies are expected.

[ChocolateReignRemix]

Pinned to me implies that the person being attacked does not have use of his arms. Clearly Zimmerman's arms were free, since he found his gun, aimed and fired. I think a more appropriate term is "straddling".

Your opinion. If I can't get up because you are on top of me I am pinned.

[poppy]

The jury instructions have been released. It looks like the standard for deadly force in self defense is (paraphrasing) if a reasonable and prudent person would feel the only way to avoid facing death or grave bodily harm would be to use deadly force. If the jury does not think he met that standard, he cannot claim self defense.

 

http://www.local10.com/blob/view/-/20950164/data/1/-/euvkyp/-/JURYINSTRUCTIONS.pdf

[ChocolateReignRemix]

The jury instructions have been released. It looks like the standard for deadly force in self defense is (paraphrasing) if a reasonable and prudent person would feel the only way to avoid facing death or grave bodily harm would be to use deadly force. If the jury does not think he met that standard, he cannot claim self defense.

 

http://www.local10.com/blob/view/-/20950164/data/1/-/euvkyp/-/JURYINSTRUCTIONS.pdf

Significant correction: the jury was instructed that if they have reasonable doubt on whether self defense was justified, they must find Zimmerman not guilty.

[Murphy101]

Being pinned and beaten is generally a reasonable belief that you may be in danger of death or serious bodily harm. The testimony from the self defense expert certainly helped Zimmerman's defense, particularly as he pointed out you do not have to wait until you are seriously injured to act.

Not only do you not have to wait until you are seriously injured (which would be stupid btw bc at that point you probably CAN'T defend yourself), you do not have to wait until you are injured at all. If a person is coming at me in what I perceive as a threatening manner, I don't have to let them take one swing, much less knock me down and pummel me before defending myself in any manner whatsoever that I can manage.

[poppy]

That is completely ridiculous. Even if it's true where you're from, that is irrelevant to this case, per the jury instructions.

 

But, the fear is that someone like George Zimmerman carried a loaded handgun with the safety off because he felt just like that. Any perceived threat justifies use of deadly force. Obviously he saw Trayvon Martin as dangerous -- he called 911 to report him. It's scary to think how many people are out with that mentality.

[ChocolateReignRemix]

That is completely ridiculous. Even if it's true where you're from, that is irrelevant to this case, per the jury instructions.

 

But, the fear is that someone like George Zimmerman carried a loaded handgun with the safety off because he felt just like that. Any perceived threat justifies use of deadly force. Obviously he saw Trayvon Martin as dangerous -- he called 911 to report him. It's scary to think how many people are out with that mentality.

No, she is correct, as per the jury instructions.

 

"A person is justified in using deadly force if he reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself.

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."

[Alte Veste Academy]

Significant correction: the jury was instructed that if they have reasonable doubt on whether self defense was justified, they must find Zimmerman not guilty.

I am LOL at this, as you have been arguing Zimmerman's side. Using Poppy's paraphrased criteria, I would personally feel my hands were tied and vote to acquit him. Using your "significant correction," I would vote to convict (happily).

[ChocolateReignRemix]

I am LOL at this, as you have been arguing Zimmerman's side. Using Poppy's paraphrased criteria, I would personally feel my hands were tied and vote to acquit him. Using your "significant correction," I would vote to convict (happily).

Then you are having a reading comprehension issue. Zimmerman does not have to prove he met a standard - the prosecution must prove beyond a reasonable doubt he didn't. The difference is quite significant as it shifts the burden of proof 180 degrees.

[Alte Veste Academy]

Then you are having a reading comprehension issue. Zimmerman does not have to prove he met a standard - the prosecution must prove beyond a reasonable doubt he didn't. The difference is quite significant as it shifts the burden of proof 180 degrees.

Oh, stop. Just stop. You're gonna hurt my feelings. :lol: Your predictability might be endearing if it were not so apoplectic. You aren't going to make me feel like a dumbass no matter how hard you try.

 

At least it shifted my vote 180 degrees!

[ChocolateReignRemix]

Oh, stop. Just stop. You're gonna hurt my feelings. :lol: Your predictability might be endearing if it were not so apoplectic. You aren't going to make me feel like a dumbass no matter how hard you try.

 

At least it shifted my vote 180 degrees!

Um...good for you?

[milovany]

There's almost no way the all the members of the jury could be "without a reasonable doubt;" not if they leave aside their personal feelings and prejudices (should they have any) and come to a decision solely based on the evidence shown to them. The prosecution presented precious little that could keep them from doubt, and the defense presented much that could do nothing but buttress their doubts. Most notably, IMO, the numerous witnesses that said it's George that's yelling for "Help!" while being beaten.

[poppy]

No, she is correct, as per the jury instructions.

 

"A person is justified in using deadly force if he reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself.

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."

 

Martha said:

Not only do you not have to wait until you are seriously injured (which would be stupid btw bc at that point you probably CAN'T defend yourself), you do not have to wait until you are injured at all. If a person is coming at me in what I perceive as a threatening manner, I don't have to let them take one swing, much less knock me down and pummel me before defending myself in any manner whatsoever that I can manage.

 

 

That is just ridiculously broad. It implies that anyone making any threat justifies the use of deadly force. That's not true.  Context matters: size of the parties is allowed to be considered, and the level of threat is certainly a factor.  If a frail elderly woman came up to me with an open hand, and I thought "she is going to slap me"... even though I perceive a threat, I am not allowed to use a gun to shoot her.

 

Now in the Zimmerman case, it is reasonable to think that deadly force was necessary to prevent death or grave bodily injury? That is for a jury to decide.  We all have opinions, and I truly don't think it's an open-and-shut case either way.   I think it's appropriate that the judge allowed the case to continue despite the defense's request to throw it out before going to a jury.

[poppy]

Just to add, though, that this brings up a question I mentioned earlier ... if Martin began a confrontation,  because he perceived Zimmerman to be a threat- couldn't he have just shot him, legally, in self defense?

[Matryoshka]

Martha said:

Not only do you not have to wait until you are seriously injured (which would be stupid btw bc at that point you probably CAN'T defend yourself), you do not have to wait until you are injured at all. If a person is coming at me in what I perceive as a threatening manner, I don't have to let them take one swing, much less knock me down and pummel me before defending myself in any manner whatsoever that I can manage.

Under this definition of self-defense, it's a good thing for GZ that TM didn't have a gun.  Because instead of either defending himself  with his fists or perhaps landing the first swing himself, he would have been well within his rights to just shoot GZ dead.  Heck, it also means that TM was well within his rights to land the first punch without calling it criminal assault, or even kill him by banging his head against the pavement - as he was defending himself "in whatever manner that he could manage" after someone came after him what he perceived to be a threatening manner.

 

See the problem with this definition?  Now they both have the right to kill each other just because they each saw the other as a threat.  Why even bother with policemen and courts?  Everyone's perfectly within their rights to kill anyone whom they perceive as threatening them.

[Mrs Mungo]

That is just ridiculously broad. It implies that anyone making any threat justifies the use of deadly force. That's not true. Context matters: size of the parties is allowed to be considered, and the level of threat is certainly a factor. If a frail elderly woman came up to me with an open hand, and I thought "she is going to slap me"... even though I perceive a threat, I am not allowed to use a gun to shoot her.

To add to that, some states have an "imperfect self-defense" rule. Yes, you were defending yourself, but over-reacted and used excessive force, then the charge can be reduced to manslaughter. Florida has no such law. My understanding is that if George did not believe he was going to sustain "great bodily harm" (and, no, being on the losing end of a fight doesn't prove that, IMO) *or* did not need to use *deadly force*, then they can find him guilty. But, that "ill will" bit still has to be proven.

 

Manslaughter by Act (Voluntary Manslaughter): Committing an intentional act or series of intentional acts that was neither excusable, nor justified that resulted in the death of another person.

Manslaughter by Procurement (Voluntary Manslaughter): Persuading, inducing, or encouraging another person to commit an act that resulted in the death of another person.

Manslaughter by Culpable Negligence (Involuntary Manslaughter): Engaging in “Culpably Negligent†conduct that resulted in the death of another person.

Manslaughter with a Weapon or Firearm

 

While not a specific element of Manslaughter, if the jury determines a weapon or firearm was used in the commission of the Manslaughter, the crime will be reclassified from a felony of the second degree to a felony of the first degree.

Florida state laws also establish involuntary manslaughter if the prosecutor shows that the defendant used excessive force during self-defense or the defense of another person.

See more at: http://statelaws.findlaw.com/florida-law/florida-involuntary-manslaughter-laws.html#sthash.5LDq0ywP.dpuf

[ChocolateReignRemix]

Just to add, though, that this brings up a question I mentioned earlier ... if Martin began a confrontation, because he perceived Zimmerman to be a threat- couldn't he have just shot him, legally, in self defense?

I thought I answered that - yes, it would have been a possible defense.

[Jennifer3141]

 

Martha said:

Not only do you not have to wait until you are seriously injured (which would be stupid btw bc at that point you probably CAN'T defend yourself), you do not have to wait until you are injured at all. If a person is coming at me in what I perceive as a threatening manner, I don't have to let them take one swing, much less knock me down and pummel me before defending myself in any manner whatsoever that I can manage.

 

 

That is just ridiculously broad. It implies that anyone making any threat justifies the use of deadly force. That's not true.  Context matters: size of the parties is allowed to be considered, and the level of threat is certainly a factor.  If a frail elderly woman came up to me with an open hand, and I thought "she is going to slap me"... even though I perceive a threat, I am not allowed to use a gun to shoot her.

 

Now in the Zimmerman case, it is reasonable to think that deadly force was necessary to prevent death or grave bodily injury? That is for a jury to decide.  We all have opinions, and I truly don't think it's an open-and-shut case either way.   I think it's appropriate that the judge allowed the case to continue despite the defense's request to throw it out before going to a jury.

 

 

Poppy, ITA. There are people in this world who just LOOK threatening but aren't actually. I'm thinking of the time DH and I got lost in an Italian section of NYC. Half those guys didn't have necks and they looked like something right off the set of the Sopranos. But I didn't get to blow their heads off because they scared me by looking like stereotypical thugs. Everytime we got turned around, they were quite delightful in helping us get re-oriented. DH and I still laugh at the scary looking guy who politely explained that the men standing outside delis asking about my mutt dog were not actually trying to STEAL said dog, they were trying to hold her leash so we could go in and pick out sandwiches. Duh.

 

I cannot believe any rational human being would try to make the argument that other human beings can have, "threatening manners" while approaching others and that in itself is justification for homicide.

 

So I'm guessing lurching from a physical handicap means I can just blow off the heads of anyone with cerebral palsy or Parkinson's now? I mean, they are LURCHING. I could feel threatened. Tattoos of skulls scare me. And you're walking too fast! BOOM! Oh, I hate burkas. You must be a terrorist and I feel threatened. BANG. Land of the free indeed...

[Mrs Mungo]

Poppy, ITA. There are people in this world who just LOOK threatening but aren't actually.

 

I was at work one time when a bearded, tough looking guy came up and asked me some questions.

 

When he left the store manager walked up and asked in a worried voice, "what did THAT guy want?"

 

I replied, "that was my dad!!"

 

So I'm guessing lurching from a physical handicap means I can just blow off the heads of anyone with cerebral palsy or Parkinson's now? I mean, they are LURCHING. I could feel threatened. Tattoos of skulls scare me. And you're walking too fast! BOOM! Oh, I hate burkas. You must be a terrorist and I feel threatened. BANG. Land of the free indeed...

Wild West.

[Murphy101]

That is just ridiculously broad. It implies that anyone making any threat justifies the use of deadly force. That's not true.  Context matters: size of the parties is allowed to be considered, and the level of threat is certainly a factor.  If a frail elderly woman came up to me with an open hand, and I thought "she is going to slap me"... even though I perceive a threat, I am not allowed to use a gun to shoot her.

No, it implies the use of self defense. It's very broad because there are a vast multitude of ways people can legitimately feel threatend or endanger and an equally vast multitude of ways people might kill each other.

 

Most people trying to defend themselves aren't too worried about not injuring the other person. Rightly so too. And yes, they use whatever means available to them. To me that he was shot means nothing unless it can be proven he planned to shoot TM. If I'm being beaten up by someone, I'm going to use whatever means available to me. Crowbar, gun, knife, crochet hook, rock.. Doesn't matter. And I'm not going to aim for a tender leg. I'm going to try to STOP the attacker and the most effect means of doing that is a blow of some kind to the chest or head. Most of us wouldn't even think about it. It's instinctive.

 

And no, size and gender doesn't matter.

 

Neither TM or GZ were frail old ladies.

 

But the key is threat of endangerment. If you thought she was going to slap you and you felt it might sting, but you could easily subdue her or get away, then you by that very circumstance would not be under threat of endangerment. So of course you can't shoot her. You don't feel dangerously threatened by her.

 

Just to add, though, that this brings up a question I mentioned earlier ... if Martin began a confrontation,  because he perceived Zimmerman to be a threat- couldn't he have just shot him, legally, in self defense?

Your pronouns are confusing. Is the "he" shooting TM or GZ in your scenario?

[happymomofboys]

The whole thing confuses me.  Based on how things are here in Alberta, I believe, if a guy followed someone else with a gun and in the end killed them that would be premediated murder because he took the gun with intentions to use it (even if just to scare someone), even if his thoughts were not on killing the boy when he followed him. 

 

Then again gun laws are tough here.  Heck if someone breaks into my house and I shoot them to protect my family I can be charged with manslaughter or murder.  So the thought that someone could get off after following this young man and then killing him is so foreign to me.

 

I don't even care if trayvon was a gangster or a straight A student, murder is murder is murder.  There should not be a get out of jail free card when this was so clearly not a self defense case to me.

 

In regard to the bolded, what would be the point of allowing people to have guns in their homes at all if you can't legally use them to protect yourself and your family in your own home?  Also, I'm not following this case well enough to know the laws in Florida or if GZ had a carry permit, but if one did have a permit to carry, why would you think they were carrying it with the intentions to shoot or scare someone?  Couldn't they just be carrying for protection, in other words self-defense?  NOT saying GZ acted in self-defense, I am only speaking about your statements here that someone who happens to be carrying a gun and follows someone must be intending to shoot or scare them.  I am not sure I understand that reasoning.

[ChocolateReignRemix]

To add to that, some states have an "imperfect self-defense" rule. Yes, you were defending yourself, but over-reacted and used excessive force, then the charge can be reduced to manslaughter. Florida has no such law. My understanding is that if George did not believe he was going to sustain "great bodily harm" (and, no, being on the losing end of a fight doesn't prove that, IMO) *or* did not need to use *deadly force*, then they can find him guilty. But, that "ill will" bit still has to be proven.

 

 

 

See more at: http://statelaws.findlaw.com/florida-law/florida-involuntary-manslaughter-laws.html#sthash.5LDq0ywP.dpuf

Of course, being assaulted by someone you don't know is a bit more than "being on the losing end of a fight".

 

The prosecution has little chance at a murder 2 conviction (IMO) as the ill will/depraved mind standard was a tough hill for them to climb. They do have a shot at a manslaughter conviction based on their appeal to emotion over the law, and the jury could (wrongly) see it as a compromise verdict.

[ChocolateReignRemix]

No, it implies the use of self defense. It's very broad because there are a vast multitude of ways people can legitimately feel threatend or endanger and an equally vast multitude of ways people might kill each other.

 

Most people trying to defend themselves aren't too worried about not injuring the other person. Rightly so too. And yes, they use whatever means available to them. To me that he was shot means nothing unless it can be proven he planned to shoot TM. If I'm being beaten up by someone, I'm going to use whatever means available to me. Crowbar, gun, knife, crochet hook, rock.. Doesn't matter. And I'm not going to aim for a tender leg. I'm going to try to STOP the attacker and the most effect means of doing that is a blow of some kind to the chest or head. Most of us wouldn't even think about it. It's instinctive.

 

And no, size and gender doesn't matter.

 

Neither TM or GZ were frail old ladies.

 

But the key is threat of endangerment. If you thought she was going to slap you and you felt it might sting, but you could easily subdue her or get away, then you by that very circumstance would not be under threat of endangerment. So of course you can't shoot her. You don't feel dangerously threatened by her.

 

 

Your pronouns are confusing. Is the "he" shooting TM or GZ in your scenario?

Poppy is correct that the response needs to be reasonably proportional to the perceived threat.

(Although yes, you can take a knife to a gun fight in the right circumstances.)

[Murphy101]

Under this definition of self-defense, it's a good thing for GZ that TM didn't have a gun.  Because instead of either defending himself  with his fists or perhaps landing the first swing himself, he would have been well within his rights to just shoot GZ dead.  Heck, it also means that TM was well within his rights to land the first punch without calling it criminal assault, or even kill him by banging his head against the pavement - as he was defending himself "in whatever manner that he could manage" after someone came after him what he perceived to be a threatening manner.

 

See the problem with this definition?  Now they both have the right to kill each other just because they each saw the other as a threat.  Why even bother with policemen and courts?  Everyone's perfectly within their rights to kill anyone whom they perceive as threatening them.

Oh good grief.

 

Nonsense.

 

There has to be threat of bodily harm. And no, the instigator isn't permitted to kill someone for defending themselves.

 

I might get a really weird feeling about a guy when I'm out for a walk, but that's not enough. He might say hi or ask weird questions or look deranged. Heck, he could actually be deranged. That's not enough. I can't just say he looked different. I have to be able to show I had reason to feel threatened with bodily harm.

 

Yes, some people just don't like the "looks" of someone. But that's not enough. They have to feel threatened by bodily harm.

[swellmomma]

In regard to the bolded, what would be the point of allowing people to have guns in their homes at all if you can't legally use them to protect yourself and your family in your own home?  Also, I'm not following this case well enough to know the laws in Florida or if GZ had a carry permit, but if one did have a permit to carry, why would you think they were carrying it with the intentions to shoot or scare someone?  Couldn't they just be carrying for protection, in other words self-defense?  NOT saying GZ acted in self-defense, I am only speaking about your statements here that someone who happens to be carrying a gun and follows someone must be intending to shoot or scare them.  I am not sure I understand that reasoning.

 \

Because I come from a culture that does not endorse concealed carry.  Heck the police force only carries tasers half the time.  People do not just walk around carrying guns unless they are the criminals.  As for guns in the home, same thing.  We have heavy gun control here.  Legally owned guns are for hunting, or for those that do competitive shooting, or for law enforcement/soldiers.  Gun ownership is not seen here the same way as there.  Out here if someone is out walking around with a concealed gun, they are up to no good.

[Murphy101]

Poppy is correct that the response needs to be reasonably proportional to the perceived threat.

(Although yes, you can take a knife to a gun fight in the right circumstances.)

Sure it does. I didn't say it didn't. I said a person doesn't have to wait until they are actually hurt and bleeding to act on the threat.

[poppy]

Martha, the relative size of the two men was specifically mentioned in the jury instructions as being a factor that the jury IS allowed to consider.

I suspect you are talking about self defense laws that are specific to one state (maybe your own), but are definitely not universal.

 

And yes, I was asking if Marin could have shot Zimmerman before any blow between the two men because Martin thought Zimmerman was a threat. The answer seems to be yes. However, I can't imagine a jury acquitting based on that, since we have that 911 call showing Zimmerman to be calm and not physically aggressive just moments earlier. Which is painfully ironic, since, obviously, Zimmerman was indeed a very serious threat to Martin. It also points out how crazy the world is. If two men fight, it's self defense for both, and only the armed one lives. So we should all be armed at all times. Knowing every nut and idiot and drunk is armed would not make me feel safer, to put it mildly.

[Matryoshka]

I might get a really weird feeling about a guy when I'm out for a walk, but that's not enough. He might say hi or ask weird questions or look deranged. Heck, he could actually be deranged. That's not enough. I can't just say he looked different. I have to be able to show I had reason to feel threatened with bodily harm.

 

Yes, some people just don't like the "looks" of someone. But that's not enough. They have to feel threatened by bodily harm.

 

So you're saying the guy who ended up dead had no reason to feel threatened with bodily harm?

[happymomofboys]

 \

Because I come from a culture that does not endorse concealed carry.  Heck the police force only carries tasers half the time.  People do not just walk around carrying guns unless they are the criminals.  As for guns in the home, same thing.  We have heavy gun control here.  Legally owned guns are for hunting, or for those that do competitive shooting, or for law enforcement/soldiers.  Gun ownership is not seen here the same way as there.  Out here if someone is out walking around with a concealed gun, they are up to no good.

 

Ok, that makes sense as far as your point of view, but this event didn't happen where you live.  This happened in the southern United States where there are good, law-abiding citizens who carry for protection and unless you presented a danger to them you'd never even know it.  I think GZ is guilty of provoking an altercation that led to the death of TM.  Based on the evidence I've read about in this thread, I believe he will be found not guilty in criminal court, but liable in civil court.  I don't, however, think that the fact that this particular man used poor judgment and killed someone means that all people who carry guns are up to no good, certainly not those who are carrying legally, and I don't understand why anyone would.

[ChocolateReignRemix]

Oh good grief.

 

Nonsense.

 

There has to be threat of bodily harm. And no, the instigator isn't permitted to kill someone for defending themselves.

That actually isn't so clear cut. In many states (including Florida) you can instigate an altercation but still be able to claim self defense in the right circumstances (most basic being if you attempt to retreat).

[Murphy101]

\

Because I come from a culture that does not endorse concealed carry. Heck the police force only carries tasers half the time. People do not just walk around carrying guns unless they are the criminals. As for guns in the home, same thing. We have heavy gun control here. Legally owned guns are for hunting, or for those that do competitive shooting, or for law enforcement/soldiers. Gun ownership is not seen here the same way as there. Out here if someone is out walking around with a concealed gun, they are up to no good.

Tho I don't own guns, I know of at least 20 people who are licensed open carry who are not affiliated with law enforcement. Some of them carry everywhere they go.

 

Gun = freedom to protect ourselves and our country to a huge segment of the USA population.

[ChocolateReignRemix]

So you're saying the guy who ended up dead had no reason to feel threatened with bodily harm?

Scenario:

A person is walking down the street. A mugger jumps out, knocks them to the ground, straddles them and starts punching them in the face. The person on the ground draws a firearm and shoots the mugger.

Would you argue the mugger felt threatened by bodily harm before being shot?

[Murphy101]

That actually isn't so clear cut. In many states (including Florida) you can instigate an altercation but still be able to claim self defense in the right circumstances (most basic being if you attempt to retreat).

Right. If the person I feel threatened by, even presuming rightly, retreats or in some other manner removes the threat (walking away, letting me go, whatever) and I keep at him, shoot him in the back... No more threat, no more justification. There has to be threat at the time.

 

Idk if Trayvon felt threatened, then yes, he could have defended himself and the result could have been a dead GZ. And then TM would have to defend himself to police/jury.

[MyThreeSons]

Significant correction: the jury was instructed that if they have reasonable doubt on whether self defense was justified, they must find Zimmerman not guilty.

Wait a minute -- this seems backwards to everything that's been said. If they doubt that self defense was justified, doesn't that mean that self defense wasn't justified? And if self defense wasn't justified, then he's guilty of something, right?

[ChocolateReignRemix]

Wait a minute -- this seems backwards to everything that's been said. If they doubt that self defense was justified, doesn't that mean that self defense wasn't justified? And if self defense wasn't justified, then he's guilty of something, right?

Posted from a phone. Insert "or not" after whether.

Basically they have to be certain self defense was NOT justified.

[swellmomma]

Ok, that makes sense as far as your point of view, but this event didn't happen where you live.  This happened in the southern United States where there are good, law-abiding citizens who carry for protection and unless you presented a danger to them you'd never even know it.  I think GZ is guilty of provoking an altercation that led to the death of TM.  Based on the evidence I've read about in this thread, I believe he will be found not guilty in criminal court, but liable in civil court.  I don't, however, think that the fact that this particular man used poor judgment and killed someone means that all people who carry guns are up to no good, certainly not those who are carrying legally, and I don't understand why anyone would.

And what I said from the start was that I did not understand it due to that POV, I didn't say the 2 cultures had to be the same.  Just that it is hard to wrap my head around how it could even be okay.

[La Texican]

No, I think reasonable doubt always means you're innocent. It has to be beyond reasonable doubt that it wasn't self defense. Yes, I got my information from Perry Mason and Angela Lansburry.

[MyThreeSons]

Posted from a phone. Insert "or not" after whether.

Basically they have to be certain self defense was NOT justified.

The burden of proof was on the prosecution to prove that self defense was not justified, right? So if the jury has any lingering thoughts that it may have been justified, they must acquit, right?

 

I hate these backward-thinking votes. Kind of like when you vote "no" on a proposition that is against something so that you can support that something.

[Matryoshka]

Scenario:

A person is walking down the street. A mugger jumps out, knocks them to the ground, straddles them and starts punching them in the face. The person on the ground draws a firearm and shoots the mugger.

Would you argue the mugger felt threatened by bodily harm before being shot?

 

Scenario:  mugger is following guy, guy feels threatened and punches and straddles mugger to prevent theft or bodily harm, mugger kills guy.  That is a more appropriate analogy.

 

TM was the guy walking down the street with someone following him in the dark.  GZ was not just walking down the street and got jumped on by a some unexpected person lying in wait; if he got jumped on at all (and did not do the jumping), then it was by someone he was following and looking for who felt threatened by him, not someone who was trying to steal his wallet.  C'mon.

[Dana]

And in an interesting twist on an attempted "stand your ground defense" check this out.

 

First line: "An armed intruder is making a “Stand Your Ground†argument in a murder trial, saying he shouldn’t be prosecuted for shooting and killing the man whose home he broke into because it looked as though the man was about to shoot him first."

 

Personally, I want these guns OFF the streets and out of the hands of these whackos.

[Mrs Mungo]

The burden of proof was on the prosecution to prove that self defense was not justified, right?

Yes.

 

So if the jury has any lingering thoughts that it may have been justified, they must acquit, right?

Lingering thoughts are not the same as reasonable doubt.

[happymomofboys]

And in an interesting twist on an attempted "stand your ground defense" check this out.

 

First line: "An armed intruder is making a “Stand Your Ground†argument in a murder trial, saying he shouldn’t be prosecuted for shooting and killing the man whose home he broke into because it looked as though the man was about to shoot him first."

 

Personally, I want these guns OFF the streets and out of the hands of these whackos.

 

How do you propose getting guns "off the streets?"  By making gun ownership illegal?  How's that working for getting drugs off the street?  

[Dana]

How do you propose getting guns "off the streets?" By making gun ownership illegal? How's that working for getting drugs off the street?

I don't have a solution. What we're doing isn't working either though.

I'd like licensing and regulation like for cars. I read the second amendment as a way to have a militia...not to have a private arsenal.

 

I don't see much personal responsibility which is what really concerns me about gun ownership.

It feels a lot more Wild West out here to me.

[Laurie4b]

Yes.

 

 

Lingering thoughts are not the same as reasonable doubt.

 

Actually, I think that is actually stated in the jury instructions as being indication of reasonable doubt--doubt that keeps surfacing, but it's late and I may not be recalling correctly. I and some others linked it earlier in this thread.

[Mrs Mungo]

Actually, I think that is actually stated in the jury instructions as being indication of reasonable doubt--doubt that keeps surfacing, but it's late and I may not be recalling correctly. I and some others linked it earlier in this thread.

 

I think you are talking about something different than the person I was answering. Here are the jury instructions relating to Reasonable Doubt.

 

 

 

Whenever the words "reasonable doubt" are used you must consider the following:

A reasonable doubt is not a mere possible doubt, a speculative, imaginary or forced doubt. Such a doubt must not influence you to return a verdict of not guilty if you have an abiding conviction of guilt. On the other hand if, after carefully considering, comparing and weighing all the evidence, there is not an abiding conviction of guilt, or, if having a conviction, it is one which is not stable but one which wavers and vacillates, then the charge is not proved beyond every reasonable doubt and you must find George Zimmerman not guilty because the doubt is reasonable.

It is to the evidence introduced in this trial, and to it alone, that you are to look for that proof.

A reasonable doubt as to the guilt of George Zimmerman may arise from the evidence, conflict in the evidence, or the lack of evidence.

If you have a reasonable doubt, you should find George Zimmerman not guilty. If you have no reasonable doubt, you should find George Zimmerman guilty.

[ChocolateReignRemix]

Scenario: mugger is following guy, guy feels threatened and punches and straddles mugger to prevent theft or bodily harm, mugger kills guy. That is a more appropriate analogy.

 

TM was the guy walking down the street with someone following him in the dark. GZ was not just walking down the street and got jumped on by a some unexpected person lying in wait; if he got jumped on at all (and did not do the jumping), then it was by someone he was following and looking for who felt threatened by him, not someone who was trying to steal his wallet. C'mon.

You made a general statement and I wanted to see how far you are wiling to defend it. Apparently not far.

The reality is we don't know what happened in that gap.. Maybe Martin was scared...maybe he went looking for a fight. We don't know. And legally it really doesn't matter.

[ChocolateReignRemix]

And in an interesting twist on an attempted "stand your ground defense" check this out.

 

First line: "An armed intruder is making a “Stand Your Ground†argument in a murder trial, saying he shouldn’t be prosecuted for shooting and killing the man whose home he broke into because it looked as though the man was about to shoot him first."

 

Personally, I want these guns OFF the streets and out of the hands of these whackos.

Odd. In most states (I thought all) you can't make that claim when you are someplace you are not entitled to be or while in the act of a crime.

[ChocolateReignRemix]

I don't have a solution. What we're doing isn't working either though.

I'd like licensing and regulation like for cars. I read the second amendment as a way to have a militia...not to have a private arsenal.

 

I don't see much personal responsibility which is what really concerns me about gun ownership.

It feels a lot more Wild West out here to me.

The current USSC reads the 2nd Amendment quite differently than you.

[Mrs Mungo]

And in an interesting twist on an attempted "stand your ground defense" check this out.

 

First line: "An armed intruder is making a “Stand Your Ground†argument in a murder trial, saying he shouldn’t be prosecuted for shooting and killing the man whose home he broke into because it looked as though the man was about to shoot him first."

 

Personally, I want these guns OFF the streets and out of the hands of these whackos.

I hope it is granted so that states get these SYG laws off the books.

 

I don't really get why the SC Supreme Court decided to hear the case though.

A person who is not engaged in an unlawful activity and who is attacked in another place where he has a right to be, including, but not limited to, his place of business, has no duty to retreat and has the right to stand his ground and meet force with force, including deadly force, if he reasonably believes it is necessary to prevent death or great bodily injury to himself or another person or to prevent the commission of a violent crime as defined in Section 16–1–60.