George Zimmerman's Lawyer Wants Jurors To See Photos Of Handgun, Pot Plants Found On Trayvon Martin's Cell Phone

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

Is there anyone that seriously believes that 12 people will unanimously decide Zimmerman is guilty of 2nd degree homicide given Florida law?

Maybe not. There's a really good chance, however, that 12 people will unanimously find him guilty of the lesser included charge of manslaughter.

[Gary and Alla 3,694]

he had skittles, too

All anyone has to do is convince 12 people that...

1. George Zimmerman was NOT in fear of severe bodily injury as Martin bashed his head on the sidewalk

AND

2. Zimmerman intended to KILL Martin when he confronted him.

Under the law, Zimmerman ahs no burden to prove anything, the prosecution must prove he was NOT in fear.

Good luck with that.

Had they charged him with manslaughter or even negligent homicide they would have had a chance for a conviction. None at all given the charges they chose. But the charges are race baiting and race based. They were chosen to satisfy racists at that time, not because they could actually get a conviction. In the end, the racists are going to be very disappointed.

[Gary and Alla 3,694]

Maybe not. There's a really good chance, however, that 12 people will unanimously find him guilty of the lesser included charge of manslaughter.

Sure. Just prove to 12 people that Zimmerman gets to help choose that he was not in fear of death OR severe bodily injury.

Simple enough.

The whole thing is racist nonsense. Big surprise.

[lostinblue 1,989]

If the kenyan had a son he would be just like him.

[Gary and Alla 3,694]

For clarification, by common sense you mean only the gun toter has the right to self defense and standing his/her ground. Right?

No.

Common sense, which by that I mean "reality". The gun toter gets judged by a jury of 12. The non-gun toter gets carried by 6 pallbearers.

BOTH have a right to self defense. The key to using the grounds of self defense in court...is to be in a court. Not in a cemetary.

Like it or not (you don't, but who cares?) The prosecution must prove to 12 people that Zimmerman was NOT in fear of his life or severe bodily injury when he used deadly force to defend himself. And Zimmerman gets a say in who gets picked for the 12. And the 12 must be from Florida.

Good luck with that.

[Gary and Alla 3,694]

I like reading through the old controversial threads on here. The conservatives have really lost some of their star players. Seems like The Nature boy is nearly all alone lately.

Nature Boy is a Liberal. So am I.

[Gary and Alla 3,694]

Gary promised he wouldn't post in P&R anymore, but that didn't stop him until Alla found out.

[Gary and Alla 3,694]

so what are your saying because it was raining and a black kid had on a hood that makes him bad

No.

A man with documented head injuries claims he feared severe bodily injury during a scuffle and shot the man that inflicted those injuries. Under Florida law he is justified to use deadly force under those circumstances.

The prosecutor only has to prove that the man who shot his assailant was NOT in fear of severe bodily injury at that moment.

To 12 people. Unanimously. In Florida. And the guy on trial gets to pick which 12 people judge him.

THAT's what I'm sayin'

[Gary and Alla 3,694]

and for the most part I am far from a classic conservative. I am pro gay rights,Pro-Choice, Very Very big believer in strict separation of church and state. I get labeled a RWNJ becuse I am for liberty for all and don't just support the Constitution when it is for a cause I support.

I.E. I am pro-gun rights guy, self reliance, lower taxes, free markets...ergo I must be a RWNJ

You are a Liberal just like I am. You are NOT a fascist. You are not a moron. You are not a low information voter. You are an informed Liberal.

You are pro Rights, NOT pro "gun rights". Liberals like you and I support ALL people's rights whether we agree with them or not or utilize them or not. Rights are not a subject for polls, popular opinion and surveys. They are RIGHTS to protect them precisely because they may be unpopular.

Being self reliant gives rights and privileges, being dependent takes them away. Reducing taxes provides FREEDOM which is also a Liberal idea.(hence the term "liberation" when they are freed from tyranny) Free markets provide CHOICE...you are pro choice. So am I.

Do not allow fascists, who seek to restrict freedom and rights, to get away with taking your title from you!

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

Gary promised he wouldn't post in P&R anymore, but that didn't stop him until Alla found out.

Gary must have figured out how to delete his browsing history.

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

Gary and Alla, on 26 May 2013 - 3:57 PM, said:

No.

A man with documented head injuries claims he feared severe bodily injury during a scuffle and shot the man that inflicted those injuries. Under Florida law he is justified to use deadly force under those circumstances.

The prosecutor only has to prove that the man who shot his assailant was NOT in fear of severe bodily injury at that moment.

To 12 people. Unanimously. In Florida. And the guy on trial gets to pick which 12 people judge him.

THAT's what I'm sayin'

Unless Zimmerman can prove Martin dragged him out of the safety of his car, Zimmerman is going to booty camp.

self-defense is not available where the evidence establishes that the defendant initially provoked violence against himself. See Section 776.041, Florida Statutes. To claim self-defense in this scenario, the accused must present sufficient evidence that the force used by the alleged victim was so great that the accused reasonably believed that he or she was in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm and that he or she had exhausted every reasonable means to escape such danger other than the use of force which is likely to cause death or great bodily harm to the assailant. Alternatively, the person who provokes the initial attack may nonetheless claim self-defense if: (1) in good faith, he or she withdrew from physical contact, (2) clearly indicated to the other person that he or she desired to withdraw and terminate the use of force, and (3) despite the communication and withdrawal, the other person continued or resumed the use of force.

http://www.husseinandwebber.com/florida-law-self-defense-use-of-force.html

Edited May 26, 2013 by The Patriot

[Gary and Alla 3,694]

Gary must have figured out how to delete his browsing history.

I am never so happy as when an opponent is reduced to irrelevent tripe.

Zimmerman will walk out because that is how the law works in Florida. Those who do not like it can attempt to change the law through legislation or litigation. The NRA does it all the time, The NRA promoted and supported the law as it is in Florida and many other states. While the idiots were sleeping, the NRA has implemented this type of law all over the country and made sure we have our right to carry concealed handguns.

It is not about race, except to racists. Only a racist would even mention the race of the parties. It is irrelevent. It is not even about "stand your ground" as the fatal shot was fired while Zimmerman was on the ground being assaulted by Martin. It is about the use of deadly force to defend oneself when you reasonably fear severe bodily injury OR death at the hands of someone else. Period. You do not have to like that.

The prosecution needs to find 12 unanimous jurors, in Florida, that will decide that Zimmerman could NOT be reasonably expected to fear severe personal injury while having his head bashed on a sidewalk by Martin. That Martin had skittles in his pocket is irrelevent nonsense. In addition, to support a conviction for 2nd degree murder they must prove to 12 jurors that Zimmerman intended to kill Martin, not just to defend himself from attack. Given that he fired ONE shot, that should be impossible to prove also. Clearly his intent was to end the assault and the risk of severe personal injury which the law allows him to do. Death is a risk factor in using deadly force, not a certainty. Had he emptied the magazine into the youth, that would be a different matter.

People tend to make this into something it is not, and then argue those points. Those will never be argued in court.

Responses about my browsing history are more irrlevent than skittles...I wasn't sure that was possible, but it is.

[Gary and Alla 3,694]

Unless Zimmerman can prove Martin dragged him out of the safety of his car, Zimmerman is going to booty camp.

Right. Nothing to worry about then. Hardly a need for trial at all.

[lostinblue 1,989]

George had every right to walk around the street as anyone.

[Gary and Alla 3,694]

George had every right to walk around the street as anyone.

Of course. Another non issue. Approaching someone in your neighborhood to ask their intentions is not against the law and it is not "provoking" an assault. And it does not matter that the 911 operator said not to. We are not subject to the demands of 911 operators.

Racists and rights haters (they are the same people) have to make this a racist issue and a gun issue. It is not. They grasp for straws.

The law is going to allow him to walk out of court acquitted of this crime.

What the supporters of Martin are seeking is the restriction of our rights. They cannot get it legislatively and they cannot even get it by litigation. The issue of "stand your ground" as a law will not be decided by this case, nor will concealed carry. But in the presence of total legislative and litigous impotence, the fascists and racists have little else to grasp for.

Even if Zimmerman is convicted, "Stand your ground" and concealed carry laws remain unchanged.

The fact remians 12 people in Florida have to unanimously decide he had no right to self defense. Good luck.