Warren v. District of Columbia, 444 A.2d 1 (D.C. Ct. of Ap., 1981). "
Posted on 05/26/2012 4:43:00 AM PDT by marktwain
Warren v. District of Columbia, 444 A.2d 1 (D.C. Ct. of Ap., 1981). "
There is only one question here. Did Zimmerman have the opportunity to retreat and avoid serious injury or possible death once Martin was on top of him beating his head on the ground? If the answer to that question is “no”, there is no crime here.
By the way, the answer to that question is “no”.
YOU, and only you, are responsible for your own defense.
In many more cases the police arrive AFTER the crime has occurred and literally chase down the criminal.
....unless the crime occurs at a Dunkin Donuts!
All cops do is write traffic tickets and hang toe tags.
What’s that famous line about self-defense .....”WHEN SECONDS COUNT, THE POLICE ARE ONLY MINUTES AWAY...”
The author missed two points I would have liked him to touch upon. First, stand your ground laws often protect the person claiming it from civil suit. Second, the prosecution may decide to say that Martin was employing stand your ground protection from Zimmerman because Zimmerman appeared to be a threat to Martin thus making Martin afraid for his life.
p>
I’d wish this first point would protect Zimmerman, period. He shouldn’t be civilly liable regardless if he could retreat or not. Regarding the second point, I wouldn’t put it past the prosecution to pull such a stunt.
“The police will always be there in time to draw the chalk line around your dead body.”
I like that.
BTTT
But how else are they gonna justify looting flat screens and sneakers?
“The author missed two points I would have liked him to touch upon.”
I see one truth missed:
5. YOU MUST NOT DISPARAGE ONE OF HOLDER’S PEOPLE (like Trayvon).
(1) How the attorneys of the Marin family are trying to set up the situation to maximize their chance of a civil lawsuit Loto-like payment.
(2) How this simple incident fit into desired anti-gun and pro-class warfare agendas of political leaders of the Democratic party during an election year.
I've read that that was why they were so desperate to get Zimmerman arrested - as a key element in a later, civil case. My question is: who do you think will be the "deep pockets" they ultimately go after? It certainly can't be Zimmerman; so do you think they may try for the gun manufacturer? I just don't see how Martin's ambulance-chasing attorneys hope to cash in on this case - unless this is more for political, anti-concealed carry objectives.
I like that.
And pick up the brass ---
“who do you think will be the “deep pockets” they ultimately go after? “
The HMO.
>>>My question is: who do you think will be the “deep pockets” they ultimately go after? <<<
Most likely the insurance company for the condo association and the city of Sanford for not training the Neigborhood Watch folks enough.
The HMO.
Maybe if the HMO had treated Trayvon properly, he wouldn't have died, huh? It must be just a ploy to get Obamacare.
As someone said elsewhere, typos are fun sometimes. :-)
OK, you got me there. Amend above post to reflect three (3) things the author missed. Thanks - my head was in the sand for just a moment there.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.