Bill Clinton Speaks Out On "Stand Your Ground" Laws

[one...two...tree 2,762]

I agree with you, and the prosecuting attorney (if it reaches that stage) will certainly raise the issue of Zimmerman following Martin. If there is evidence that Zimmerman "cornered" Martin then I'm sure that a jury would take this into account. I also agree that if you were armed and someone followed and cornered you, then displayed the fact that they were armed, you may well be able to convince a jury that you felt you were in imminent danger of an attack that was lethal or posed risk of great bodily harm. A typical example of legislation covering this:

So, the example you gave- cornering a person and displaying a firearm- Could certainly inspire "a reasonable fear of serious physical injury or death", and give them grounds to defend themselves. If you were put into that situation in Florida (or California, any other state without a "duty to retreat") at least you would not have to convince a jury that you could have reasonably retreated from this person's agression.

And that's why I'm thinking that even if Martin 'jumped' Zimmerman, he could have done so out of self defense if he in fact was cornered and saw that Zimmerman was carrying a gun. Some have argued that if Martin initiated physical contact, it could NOT have been self defense, but according to what you've stated in the last few posts 1.) use of lethal force is not exclusive to the use of guns and 2.) being followed and/or cornered by someone carrying a gun could be interpreted as a threat to ones life.

[xebec 195]

And that's why I'm thinking that even if Martin 'jumped' Zimmerman, he could have done so out of self defense if he in fact was cornered and saw that Zimmerman was carrying a gun. Some have argued that if Martin initiated physical contact, it could NOT have been self defense, but according to what you've stated in the last few posts 1.) use of lethal force is not exclusive to the use of guns and 2.) being followed and/or cornered by someone carrying a gun could be interpreted as a threat to ones life.

That is certainly the case, and furthermore, Martin had no duty to retreat if he was justifiably acting in self-defence (thus being "cornered" would not be a necessary part of his defence, had the tables been turned and Zimmerman were dead). But it will fall on the prosecution to prove that, if Martin did initiate contact, it was an act of self-defence provoked by menacing on the part of Zimmerman. Barring new eye-witnesses, that sounds like a very difficult thing to prove. On a similar note, if evidence indicates that Martin did initiate physical contact, the prosecution will need to prove that Zimmerman wasn't in fear of great bodily harm or death- even more difficult.

Edited April 3, 2012 by xebec

[one...two...tree 2,762]

That is certainly the case, and furthermore, Martin had no duty to retreat if he was justifiably acting in self-defence (thus being "cornered" would not be a necessary part of his defence, had the tables been turned and Zimmerman were dead). But it will fall on the prosecution to prove that, if Martin did initiate contact, it was an act of self-defence provoked by menacing on the part of Zimmerman.

It will be interesting to see how this unfolds.

[ready4ONE 5,400]

That is certainly the case, and furthermore, Martin had no duty to retreat if he was justifiably acting in self-defence (thus being "cornered" would not be a necessary part of his defence, had the tables been turned and Zimmerman were dead). But it will fall on the prosecution to prove that, if Martin did initiate contact, it was an act of self-defence provoked by menacing on the part of Zimmerman. Barrinhttp://www.cnn.com/2012/03/07/justice/oklahoma-shooting/index.htmlg new eye-witnesses, that sounds like a very difficult thing to prove. On a similar note, if evidence indicates that Martin did initiate physical contact, the prosecution will need to prove that Zimmerman wasn't in fear of great bodily harm or death- even more difficult.

And that, sir, was precisely what I meant in my post. It is impossible to prove someone didn't fear for their life, thus all Floridians are under threat of being murdered with no consequence for the killer. Thus a Floridian would be justified in walking down the street shooting anyone within gunshot range all courtesy of bad legislation.

[Gary and Alla 3,694]

If people are unhappy with the laws of their state. Change them. Until they are changed, we go by the law and rules of evidence. NOT by distorted videos and statements shown on media.

There is a procedure for all of this...follow it, or STFU!

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

If people are unhappy with the laws of their state. Change them. Until they are changed, we go by the law and rules of evidence. NOT by distorted videos and statements shown on media.

There is a procedure for all of this...follow it, or STFU!

Somebody's panties are in a wad.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

If people are unhappy with the laws of their state. Change them. Until they are changed, we go by the law and rules of evidence. NOT by distorted videos and statements shown on media.

There is a procedure for all of this...follow it, or STFU!

Chillax, Gary. The reason why so many people are interested, concerned or upset with the Trayvon Martin case is because the man who shot him was let go by police and not charged with a crime. For most rational people, that's upsetting when an unarmed person, a teenager no less, is gunned down and the shooter isn't arrested. Then to add insult to injury, there were people drawing their own conclusions - that Martin got it coming or the police would have arrested Zimmerman - as if the police never bungle an investigation. There would be no further investigation into this case had it not gotten this level of attention. Trayvon would have never gotten his day in court and we'd be left with speculation. Secondly, there have been some interesting developments into the case - key pieces of strong evidence that don't corroborate with the shooter's story. If you have no interest in discussing the issues surrounding this case, find another thread or subject that is more to your liking.

Edited April 3, 2012 by Mister Fancypants

[xebec 195]

And that, sir, was precisely what I meant in my post. It is impossible to prove someone didn't fear for their life, thus all Floridians are under threat of being murdered with no consequence for the killer. Thus a Floridian would be justified in walking down the street shooting anyone within gunshot range all courtesy of bad legislation.

That would apply to the self-defense legislation in every state. What is so especially dangerous about Florida's? I just pointed out in an earlier post that California has the same basic body of law. Care to address that? Maybe you will find a state law on self-defense that will demonstrate that Florida's law is remarkable? I know already that you won't....that would be a substantive post.... can't have that, can we? Why don't you cowboy up here for a change, and back up some of the histrionics....

Edited April 3, 2012 by xebec

[xebec 195]

And that, sir, was precisely what I meant in my post. It is impossible to prove someone didn't fear for their life, thus all Floridians are under threat of being murdered with no consequence for the killer. Thus a Floridian would be justified in walking down the street shooting anyone within gunshot range all courtesy of bad legislation.

P.S.-found something to get you started. Here is your own state's law:

RCW 9A.16.050

Homicide — By other person — When justifiable.

Homicide is also justifiable when committed either:

(1) In the lawful defense of the slayer, or his or her husband, wife, parent, child, brother, or sister, or of any other person in his or her presence or company, when there is reasonable ground to apprehend a design on the part of the person slain to commit a felony or to do some great personal injury to the slayer or to any such person, and there is imminent danger of such design being accomplished; or

(2) In the actual resistance of an attempt to commit a felony upon the slayer, in his or her presence, or upon or in a dwelling, or other place of abode, in which he or she is.

[2011 c 336 § 354; 1975 1st ex.s. c 260 § 9A.16.050.]

In other words, state prosecution in Washington would have the same burden of proof as Florida.

Care to address that with some detail or logic?

[xebec 195]

How about one from New Hampshire:

627:4 Physical Force in Defense of a Person.

II. A person is justified in using deadly force upon another person when he reasonably believes that such other person:

(a) Is about to use unlawful, deadly force against the actor or a third person;

(b) Is likely to use any unlawful force against a person present while committing or attempting to commit a burglary;

© Is committing or about to commit kidnapping or a forcible sex offense

Wow! In New Hampshire a person can use deadly force against a person he reasonably believes is about to punch someone who surprised them during a burglary! Or someone who grabs a child and gropes them.

Where is the hysterical outrage over New Hampshire Ready4One?

[Ban Hammer 13,550]

one bait post removed.

[Brother Hesekiel 2,236]

I really don't care about the dead boy. But let's agree on this: if the Zimmermann dude had not been allowed to carry a gun around -- and in California he wouldn't have gotten such a permit -- the kid would still be alive.

[ready4ONE 5,400]

one bait post removed.

Seriously Chuck??? You only found one? ;-)

[xebec 195]

I really don't care about the dead boy. But let's agree on this: if the Zimmermann dude had not been allowed to carry a gun around -- and in California he wouldn't have gotten such a permit -- the kid would still be alive.

Only if one assumes that Zimmerman would not have armed himself in some other fashion. A knife would have been just as deadly under the circumstances that are being described in this case. Another reality is this.... this guy, this guy, and this woman would probably be dead if they weren't legally armed....

[xebec 195]

double tap

Edited April 4, 2012 by xebec