Justice for Trayvon??

[Sean]

The wounds on Zimmerman's face and the back of his head. If Zimmerman provoked the encounter by pulling his gun on Martin Martin would have run, done what he was told, or tried to get the gun away from Zimmerman. No one throws someone on the ground and hits him if he still has a gun. He will go for the gun first.

You're a moron.

 

[unregistered]

 

[IrezumiKiss]

dheerrrrrrp!

 

[SgtSpiderMan]

We all saw the same evidence, some were taken in my the original false claims of white racism in the beginning, and some weren't. Some folks were completely taken in with the story that a small black boy, only interested in a bag of skittles, and a skip down the sidewalk, was relentlessly hunted down and murdered in the flower of his innocent youth by a racist white man, some believe that's bullshit. Some like you believe that a man has to take a beating to within an inch of his life and can't use deadly force to defend himself, others including the law don't see it that way. In your case it really all comes down to what you refuse to believe.

No. In your case it comes down to what you believe regardless of evidence.

 

[SgtSpiderMan]

Even if Zimmerman instigated the encounter, he still has the right to defend himself with deadly force if the encounter escalates into a threat to his life, or great bodily harm. That was testified to by a law professor at trial.

I'm not 100% sure Stand Your Ground works that way. I could be wrong.

Is there a possibility that Zimmerman's life wasn't in danger?

 

[Ishmael]

I'm not 100% sure Stand Your Ground works that way. I could be wrong.

Is there a possibility that Zimmerman's life wasn't in danger?

Urrmmm, the defense declined the 'Stand Your Ground" hearing, they are trying the case a straightforward self-defense. So all the barracks lawyers here can stop quoting and trying to interpret that particular law because it won't be used by the defense or cited in the instructions to the jury.

Ishmael

 

[unregistered]

 

[SgtSpiderMan]

The Florida U law professor who testified was sure:

"Seminole County College professor Alexis Carter testified that he taught students that Florida’s self-defense laws state that fear of injury, not actual injury, is all that is required to invoke one’s right to self-defense, including use of a deadly weapon."

http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Justic...n-studied-self-defense-law-witness-says-video

Maybe, but the law allows him to determine that question using the reasonable man theory, it's up to the prosecution to prove it wasn't.

I can't say I'm amazed as your opinion of public employees changes as it suits your needs.

The burden of proof is on the prosecution, but if you actually read the thread you'll see that's not what I was referring to.

 

[SgtSpiderMan]

Urrmmm, the defense declined the 'Stand Your Ground" hearing, they are trying the case a straightforward self-defense. So all the barracks lawyers here can stop quoting and trying to interpret that particular law because it won't be used by the defense or cited in the instructions to the jury.

Ishmael

Tell Vette. If you read the thread you'll see he brought it up.

 

[unregistered]

 

[CHNOPS]

Urrmmm, the defense declined the 'Stand Your Ground" hearing, they are trying the case a straightforward self-defense. So all the barracks lawyers here can stop quoting and trying to interpret that particular law because it won't be used by the defense or cited in the instructions to the jury.

Ishmael

Neither half of this sentence is true. There was a tactical reason for waiving the original hearing; it has no bearing on whether he can still claim it, even after closing arguments.

----------
​

George Zimmerman said under oath during a hearing Tuesday that he will not pursue immunity under Florida's "Stand Your Ground" law before his trial begins June 10.

Zimmerman's statements leave open the possibility that he could raise the issue of "Stand Your Ground" immunity during his trial.

The significance of this tactical move means that the prosecution will only see the defense presentation of its evidence at trial.

If the defense chose to have a pre-trial "Stand Your Ground" hearing it would amount to a miniature trial, and if unsuccessful the prosecution would get a glimpse into the defense's case.

Judge Debra Nelson asked, “Is it your decision to not file the pretrial immunity motion?”

“Yes, your honor,” said Zimmerman.

The issue of "Stand Your Ground" immunity is not dead. Zimmerman's attorneys could raise the issue of immunity after closing arguments in his trial, and ask Nelson to rule on whether Zimmerman should be granted immunity from prosecution before the case is given to the jury for deliberations.

The "Stand Your Ground" law allows the use of deadly force as long as the defendant can prove the following factors:

• Are not engaged in an unlawful activity.
• Are being attacked in a place you have a right to be.
• Reasonably believe that your life and safety is in danger as a result of an overt act or perceived threat committed by someone else toward you.

http://www.hlntv.com/article/2013/04/29/live-blog-zimmerman-back-court-critical-hearing

 

[unregistered]

 

[SgtSpiderMan]

Did I say anything in regard to the "stand your ground law?" All I did was mention the Florida law of self defense. Read my quote of the Professor.

Yes, you did. Prior to Stand Your Ground Zimmerman would have been required to retreat before using deadly force.

 

[SgtSpiderMan]

What does my opinion of public employees have to do with the testimony of a law professor? It's a fact, he testified as I posted he did. I don't pretend to know better than him what the states in Florida. However you live there, so you should know damn well what the law is.

Zimmerman lives in Florida too. Somehow you give him a pass on knowing the law though.

 

[Squibbs]

I'm not 100% sure Stand Your Ground works that way. I could be wrong.

Is there a possibility that Zimmerman's life wasn't in danger?

I think he IS wrong.

From what I have read and heard you cannot instigate while packing heat.

 

[RobDownSouth]

Neither half of this sentence is true. There was a tactical reason for waiving the original hearing; it has no bearing on whether he can still claim it, even after closing arguments.

----------
​

George Zimmerman said under oath during a hearing Tuesday that he will not pursue immunity under Florida's "Stand Your Ground" law before his trial begins June 10.

Zimmerman's statements leave open the possibility that he could raise the issue of "Stand Your Ground" immunity during his trial.

The significance of this tactical move means that the prosecution will only see the defense presentation of its evidence at trial.

If the defense chose to have a pre-trial "Stand Your Ground" hearing it would amount to a miniature trial, and if unsuccessful the prosecution would get a glimpse into the defense's case.

Judge Debra Nelson asked, “Is it your decision to not file the pretrial immunity motion?”

“Yes, your honor,” said Zimmerman.

The issue of "Stand Your Ground" immunity is not dead. Zimmerman's attorneys could raise the issue of immunity after closing arguments in his trial, and ask Nelson to rule on whether Zimmerman should be granted immunity from prosecution before the case is given to the jury for deliberations.

The "Stand Your Ground" law allows the use of deadly force as long as the defendant can prove the following factors:

• Are not engaged in an unlawful activity.
• Are being attacked in a place you have a right to be.
• Reasonably believe that your life and safety is in danger as a result of an overt act or perceived threat committed by someone else toward you.

http://www.hlntv.com/article/2013/04/29/live-blog-zimmerman-back-court-critical-hearing

You mean Ishmael lied to us?
Wow.

 

[Squibbs]

I think Trayvon was standing his ground when a coward shot him.

 

[unregistered]

 

[SgtSpiderMan]

Even if Zimmerman instigated the encounter, he still has the right to defend himself with deadly force if the encounter escalates into a threat to his life, or great bodily harm. That was testified to by a law professor at trial.

Show me where I posted on stand your ground law.

Who cares what the law was before 2005? This trial is about what the law is now.

You need to go here and get educated:

Self Defense in Florida: When is Deadly Force Allowed?

"There are two primary statutes in Florida outlining when the use of deadly force is justified so as to avoid criminal liability. Under Section 776.012, Florida Statutes (Florida’s “Stand Your Ground” Law), a person is justified in using deadly force (and does not have a duty to retreat) if he or she reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent the imminent commission of a forcible felony or to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another. Under Section 782.02, Florida Statutes, the use of deadly force is further justified when a person is resisting any attempt to murder such person or to commit any felony upon him or her or upon or in any dwelling house in which the person is located." "

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

Here you go.

 

[unregistered]

 

[SgtSpiderMan]

Here you go what?

The professors testimony cited self defense statutes, not Stand your ground. I posted the two applicable self defense laws. The defense hasn't made their case on Stand your ground, but on the laws of self defense that already existed in Florida.

That's you specifically bringing up Stand Your Ground.

 

[unregistered]

 

[SgtSpiderMan]

Yeah long after you claimed I did, you idiot.

I just cited that you specifically brought it first.

 

[unregistered]

 

[unregistered]