Originally posted by Tzeentch._
Talking shit to someone does not give that person the legal right to beat your ass, and if they try, you are legally allowed to defend yourself, regardless of whether you started the fight or not.Under Florida law, no you haven't.
....well remember you said that.............
Originally posted by Tzeentch._
I will shoot you for punching me in the face, repeatedly.Even if I started the fight by telling you that I ****ed your mother, I am legally allowed to shoot you if you attack me for saying that, under Florida law.
But on that note.....would you run your mouth the same way if you DIDN'T have a gun?
Originally posted by jedi90
you know what, you're right. i was incorrect on that matter.
Mad respect. 👆
Originally posted by Oliver North
just as an aside: This probably is indicative of why people are going to be pissed off if Zimmerman doesn't get the murder charge. People with literally no willingness to even inform themselves about how courts work or the most basic details of the case are calling for Zimmerman to get the death penalty... How, in the age of the internet, where the entire trial is available on YouTube, with no commentary, and all these basic facts on thousands of sites, can people really be so willing to debate something they clearly don't want to know anything about.../RARGH thats it for tonight folks... reached the "not fun anymore" point.
😆
Until the trial, I thought there might be a chance that Zimmers could get some sort of conviction. Then shit started coming out in the trial and I changed my mind. Even with the internet, the case was still not cut and dry until we saw some stuff in court (for instance, I thought the whole "Zimmerman thought his nose was broken" argument was complete bullshit until someone posted that photo of Zimmerman's swollen nose while in the police car).
Originally posted by Tzeentch._
I will shoot you for punching me in the face, repeatedly.Even if I started the fight by telling you that I ****ed your mother, I am legally allowed to shoot you if you attack me for saying that, under Florida law.
Well....and pretty much anywhere else. You won't get a murder charge in that situation...and I checked: you cannot be charged a crime for insulting someone. But you can if it is harassment or something.
Originally posted by dadudemon
Mad respect. 👆😆
Until the trial, I thought there might be a chance that Zimmers could get some sort of conviction. Then shit started coming out in the trial and I changed my mind. Even with the internet, the case was still not cut and dry until we saw some stuff in court (for instance, I thought the whole "Zimmerman thought his nose was broken" argument was complete bullshit until someone posted that photo of Zimmerman's swollen nose while in the police car).
Well....and pretty much anywhere else. You won't get a murder charge in that situation...and I checked: you cannot be charged a crime for insulting someone. But you can if it is harassment or something.
Not a crime for insulting...but expect repercussions for disrespecting another man..nobody wants to listen to that.
Originally posted by SMIFF-N-WESSONFirst of all, this is an idiotic statement. There are, in fact, mentally handicapped people that are aware that they are mentally handicapped.
And for the record, retarded people don't know that they are retarded.
You can not, in fact, expect to get away with beating the shit out of someone because they "talked shit" to you. And even if you do fight them, bashing someone's head against the pavement is a potentially lethal manner of "beating the shit" out of someone, so you are well-within your rights to defend your life.
You are presumably a grown man.
Act like one.
Originally posted by jedi90
don't think so, they're seen as two different laws.
The "Castle Doctrine" is the legal basis of "Stand-Your-Ground" laws. Neither is the official name of what is relevant here. If you want to say "Floria State Statute Title XLVI Section 776.012 with reference to Floria State Statute Title XLVI Section 776.013, Part 3", you can, but otherwise the terms Castle Doctrine and SYG are both totally reasonable.
Originally posted by dadudemon
😆Until the trial, I thought there might be a chance that Zimmers could get some sort of conviction. Then shit started coming out in the trial and I changed my mind. Even with the internet, the case was still not cut and dry until we saw some stuff in court (for instance, I thought the whole "Zimmerman thought his nose was broken" argument was complete bullshit until someone posted that photo of Zimmerman's swollen nose while in the police car).
being totally honest, I can understand the desire to see Zimmerman in jail, and if the only familiarity you have with the case is "white man guns down innocent black kid with skittles, not arrested", it seems really open and close. I think I've been pretty clear, if I got to make the rules, there would be something, probably reckless endangerment or criminal negligence causing death, that Zimmerman would be guilty of, though at this point I have trouble thinking of any court that would give him a murder charge. I also had no idea how insane Florida was...
Though there is a little disagreement between the Zimmerman and the medical examiner as to how many times his head was hit (25 v 3-4), short of there being any witnesses who saw the altercation start or the gunshot, it really isn't possible to rule out the self-defense position, and given the presumption of innocence and "beyond a reasonable doubt" stuff, he should go free. It leaves a terrible taste in my mouth, but again, I come from a place where concealed carry isn't allowed at all.
Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
The "Castle Doctrine" is the legal basis of "Stand-Your-Ground" laws. Neither is the official name of what is relevant here. If you want to say "Floria State Statute Title XLVI Section 776.012 with reference to Floria State Statute Title XLVI Section 776.013, Part 3", you can, but otherwise the terms Castle Doctrine and SYG are both totally reasonable.
weird, I thought the Castle Doctrine was an official name for a collection of statutes. It is just another sort of short-hand courts and lawmakers have come up with then?
Originally posted by Oliver North
with the exception of who was screaming, the prosecution does not challenge this at all. There is no question that there was an altercation between Martin and Zimmerman, and little evidence to suggest it was Zimmerman on top at that point.
Which I find a little silly since according to their own witness Zimmerman was screaming for help.
Originally posted by Oliver North
Jeantel was not on the phone when the altercation began, iirc.
She was. She said she heard Martin ask “Why are you following me for?” to which Zimmerman replied “What are you doing?” and then Martin asked the same thing again and then she heard a “THUMP” and the phone disconnected. Not that it tells who may have thrown the first punch, it tells me since Zimmerman was actively keeping his distance that it was most likely Martin that walked up to Zimmerman, not the other way around.
Originally posted by Oliver North
I haven't seen a comparative timeline of the phone calls, but it is entirely possible this was the point where, in Zimmerman's 911 call, he says "He is coming toward me", or something of that nature.
It was a little bit after he ended his call to 9-1-1.
Originally posted by Oliver North
The prosecution would also suggest that Zimmerman's actions would justifiably make Martin fearful, thus justifying the initiation of the conflict.
Yes I can agree with this. But if you’re fearful and you’re almost home why turn back and confront the man following you? It just seems like he actively tried to confront Zimmerman instead of just walking home.
Originally posted by Oliver North
yes, that is how the defense has been presenting thisIt's about 1h 40m, gives perspective on how Florida law works in these cases. Good case for why Murder 2 might not apply, defense doesn't even try to get the acquittal on manslaughter though. In the end I agree with the judge here, in that, there is enough to suggest the jury should decide the Murder 2 charge, though it is certainly the weaker position for the prosecution.
tbh, I'd say they are only going for Murder in the first place because of the profile of the case] .
I’ll give this a look tonight.
Originally posted by jedi90
interesting point of vew
Thanks
Originally posted by jedi90
i think everyone can agree that the prosecution is barely holding their own. i have a feeling that zimmerman is probably going to get off.zimmerman should do jail time though. it's funny, everyone can put themselves in the shoes of the neighborhood watch zimmerman but can't seem to fathom that maybe, just maybe martin was scared of this man who had been following him by car and was now out of his vehicle getting closer on a dark rainy night.
I agree than Martin may have felt threatened but it seems like he went out of his way to confront Zimmerman when he could have just gone home. From the statements Martin’s friend gave, Zimmerman was keeping his distance and watching Martin. He was not just walking right up to him looking for trouble as most seem to believe.
Originally posted by jedi90
no one will know who started the fight because martin is dead and zimmerman's articulate memory gets fuzzy around that point. i do believe that zimmerman's account of the incident is truthful with the exception of those minor details his memory gets fuzzy on that could change the whole perception of his story.
I agree
What I find especially ****ed up about this is that Florida law makes it so that Zimmerman trying to killer Trayvon and Trayvon trying to kill Zimmerman were not only both legal but logically justified. If they got in a fight and both lived both would have been open to prosecution by the other. In a very real sense it is only the fact that the situation escalated to homicide that protects Zimmerman.
Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
What I find especially ****ed up about this is that Florida law makes it so that Zimmerman trying to killer Trayvon and Trayvon trying to kill Zimmerman were not only both legal but logically justified. If they got in a fight and both lived both would have been open to prosecution by the other. In a very real sense it is only the fact that the situation escalated to homicide that protects Zimmerman.
Florida laws literally encourage murder. 😐
Originally posted by Omega Vision
One of my high school teachers once told the entire class that if we settle down in Florida and ever find ourselves in a situation where we have to defend our home from a robber and we shoot the robber but don't kill him, then we should finish the job because it's safer to kill in defense of property than risk legal action for injuring a criminal in our own house.Florida laws literally encourage murder. 😐
great discouragement for entering another person's home where their children sleep. would you really feel bad for the criminal in this situation?
do you believe citizens should be allowed to possess weapons like guns?