Posted on 06/28/2013 6:45:18 PM PDT by RoosterRedux
Fate is giving us all the finger on this one. While I was watching the trial coverage on HLN yesterday, I saw an ad for a new movie about how a white BART cop in SF accidentally shot an unarmed black teenager and killed him. It comes out on July 12. There is no way the timing is just a random coincidence.
http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/fruitvale_station/
Oh it gets better than self-inflicted wounds. Yesterday I saw a tweet from a very representative member of “DeeDee”’s “culture” who wondered if she was being paid by GZ to testify as poorly as she did.
Here is the problem. If you use a gun in self defense during a fight, the legal grounds become very tricky. Question to the gun owner is did you provoke the situation that resulted in a fight and gunplay resulted? If yes, even if your life is in danger, you can still be guilty of manslaughter because none of this would have happen if you did not provoke the fight. The only defense against such charge is demonstrate that once you started the provocation, prove that you tried to de escalate it and the offended party did not accept de escalation.
I remember reading a case where a homeowner crossed the street and criticize a neighbor across the street on the junk around the house causing an eye sore. The arguments escalated and became heated. The homeowner still traded barbs with the neighbor as he crossed back onto his own lawn with the neighbor following him. The homeowner went back into his house still arguing and yelling at the neighbor who now is standing outside his kitchen door yelling and more angry. The homeowner was inside, got out his handgun and shot the neighbor claiming that he was pounding on his door and threatening to break in. Court ruled manslaughter. Why? When the homeowner retreated he was still escalating the situation with verbal insults.
Why is the law picky on this point. It prevents an armed trouble maker starting a fight, letting the situation escalating to a life threatening thresh hold so he can try out his gun on someone and then claim self defense. Gunowners and CCW need to be aware of these criterias when you have a confrontation. Best response is “I am sorry if I offended youm, and I don’t want trouble” and retreat in silence. Question is did GZ do that and can he prove it? His legal problems began when he decided to follow TM. He entered a gray zone of the law, where guilt and innocence rests on his actions and reactions to TM when TM turned and challenge him for following him.
In the words of a Iraqi War Vet that reflects the nature of law, “shoot three seconds too early you are a war criminal, shoot three seconds too late and someone in your platoon gets shot”.
If da’ truth don’t fit, we must acquit. The Great OZ has spoken.
I could only watch a few minutes of it (CNN or something), and some former prosecutors were lined up and saying how Zimmerman’s injuries weren’t severe enough to warrant a self-defense shooting.
I’m guessing they figured George should have waited until gray matter was oozing out on to the sidewalk before he shot? And based on Zimmerman’s testimony, he didn’t shoot until Martin discovered Z’s gun.
I suppose there is a legal threshold for “self defense”, but as an old guy that has never punched someone, or been punched (even as a kid), I imagine after getting decked once by some guy, and I couldn’t get away - I would pull my firearm. Legal in my state in an attempt to prevent a felony assault.
The legal threshold in FL — as Prosecution well knows — does not require injury. Their awful performance today repeatedly implying that your example of a cracked-open head is the requirement borders on malpractice.
Please buy or borrow a gun and plenty of ammo. You could possibly become a target. I’m definitely NOT kidding. There are a few blacks in a neighborhood next to us too so I’m also concerned. Hopefully the rednecks around me outnumber them.
I would agree that the prosecution isn’t in a pleasant case and it’s unlikely to be winnable. Once the stand-your-ground rule is explained to the jury...you can beat on at least two jury members going in that direction. It’s within range to say that this pretty sure to be a hung jury or they all agree to deem him innocent of charges. With a hung jury, everyone will sit there and talk of another case....but it’d take at least six to eight months for the prosecution to line up their attack in a slightly different manner. This thought would not be pleasant to consider if you were the current prosecution team. A case like this is something you desire once in your life, and if you don’t win it....it burns the heck out of you in terms of invested time.
It's not shocking to us because conservative media, including FR, reported it long ago. My guess is that those who rely on the MSM or on leftist social media for their information have never heard it before.
You don’t need a gun...you need a moving van...soon.
Doesn’t matter. It’s up to the jury. Who knows how they will decide. Who knows how smart or stupid they are.
Yep. Remember how OJ’s scheisser smeared Mark Fuhrman?
shelterguy ~:” I have been on several juries. Never underestimate the stupidity of the average American.”
Dont forget that the judge disallowed any reference to MMA, fighting ,or hangun on Trayvons cellphone to establish background character.
But the judge did allow former calls to police by Zimmerman ,establishing character background.
The jury doesn’t have all the information that we have; some information was selectively edited out by the judge.
The jury’s decision will be based on what information that they hear, and not all the known information that we have access to.
“But the judge did allow former calls to police by Zimmerman ,establishing character background.”
True, but I’m not so sure that Zimmerman’s former calls to the police are actually damaging to him. He seemed perfectly reasonable, almost dispassionate in them. Certainly not some wild eyed vigilante.
The state isn't seeking justice, they are offering a sacrifice to the mob!
Help me understand.... the judge allows these previous 911 by Zimmerman. The fact GZ wanted to be a cop. But the defense cannot bring up Trayvon Martin’s past,and the very pertinent fact he had MJ in his system the night of the shooting?
Here is Andrew Branca, a Massachusetts attorney and the author of "Law of Self Defense," writing about that subject at Legal Insurrection:
This line of questioning seems remarkably foolish, for two reasons. First, there is no requirement under the law of self defense in Florida, or any other state, that a person must suffer so much as a scratch before they can use force, and even deadly force, in self-defense. All that the law of self-defense requires is that you have been REASONABLY IN FEAR of imminent death or grave bodily harm–it does NOT require that you ACTUALLY EXPERIENCE death or grave bodily harm before you can act in self-defense.Second, however much effort Mr. de la Rionda might invest in arguing that Zimmerman suffered no meaningful injury, the numerous bloody photos of his injuries that night easily belie any such claims.
Interesting graphic. I thought that Z was mostly on the grass, with his head hitting the concrete - but perhaps that isn’t the point of the graphic. And probably doesn’t matter.
What I wonder if it has been, or will be, brought up is the construction of the buildings and location of landscaping with respect to Martin being close to the buildings to get out of the rain. Were the eaves large enough and the landscaping so few that he could walk near them in an attempt to stay dry.
And if he was worried about getting wet, and only wanting to get back to his place to watch the game - why would he double back away from where he was staying?
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.