Attorney General Praises Rev Sharpton

[naplesE30]

I am very surprised they went with 2nd degree murder.... (maybee they figured we cant convict him of anything in all likelyhood, so lets go with the higher crime to appease)...It will be very very hard to prove that charge, espc with the law as it is in FL.

An example: Recently at the school my wife teaches at a student brought a knife to school as protection for a pre-arranged fight that took place after the students gott off the bus..He then stabbed the bully 7 times in the gut killing him, and charges were dropped. So this is the uphill battle of the state.

The question then becomes, if Zimmerman is aquitted, when Sharpton and Jackson swoop in and violence follows on what legs does the AG have to stand? He will have essentially enabled it. It is very dangerous ground.

[Dozyproductions]

He's going by Florida state law I'm assuming, and until all the facts have come out as to what exactly happened you and everyone else who are claiming him to be a murderer are jumping the gun.

again, I ain't jumping to anything. So I haven't been following the case too closely because the national attention it's getting makes it suspect in my mind but how is this going to play out? Just the word of Zimmerman or what?

[naplesE30]

There are a few witnesses both claiming different stories from my understanding, as well as screams heard but not possitively identified etc. To my limited knowledge nothing that sounds concrete or bulletproof under cross-examination,,, time will tell. But if Casey Anthony was able to walk, he sure stands a good chance of doing the same. After all the local police were of the opinion their wasnt a strong enough case to even go forward with charges, let alone a conviction.

[Morrison]

For me its all pretty cut and dry. Zimmerman saw somone he presumed to be dangerous walking around his neighborhood at night. What do I do when I see someone I presume to be dangerous? I go the opposite direction, or severely detour from my original route. If I really feel they are a threat to society I guess I'd call 911 but they'd have to really be doing something wacky for me to make that effort. Zimmy on the other hand decided to invoke himself as law enforcement and go after the "suspicious looking person". When he made that decision, he loses all rights to any "stand your ground" law in my opinion. Because he's not standing his ground - he's moving in on someone elses. As far as unkown facts, there really aren't that many since they were both talking on their cell phones for almost the entirety of the event, minus the last minute and a half. The one fact I'd really like to know is what Zim said or did to provoke a nose-breaking worthy punch from Treyvon, or is that something he just had a habit of doing to all people who approach him? If you just use common sense and past experience any reasonable individual should be able to fill in the "unknown facts" on their own.

[mrsleeve]

^

Your right. But when he broke off and started heading back for his car, His rights to both Self defense and stand your ground are back in play. He was no longer the aggressor, so when the little shit then attacked him as the aggressor (the little thug should have walked away too) zimmerman was well with in his rights to defend him self with what ever force he saw fit at that point.

[grahamsy2k]

thanks you for your words mrsleeve.

see sig

[Dozyproductions]

^

Your right. But when he broke off and started heading back for his car, His rights to both Self defense and stand your ground are back in play. He was no longer the aggressor, so when the little shit then attacked him as the aggressor (the little thug should have walked away too) zimmerman was well with in his rights to defend him self with what ever force he saw fit at that point.

interesting. Is that the prevailing wisdom that he was attacked when he was getting back into his car after nothing happened?

[smooth]

interesting. Is that the prevailing wisdom that he was attacked when he was getting back into his car after nothing happened?

no and it's irrelevant anyway. self defense doesn't shift around like that.

[naplesE30]

Local attorneys are giving it a 50-50 proposition of being dismissed in pre-trial. All the defense has to prove according to local counsel is that he feared for his life period. If the judge feels that he feared for his life,, OR he did not set out with malice it will be dismissed. This is why so many were shocked(at least around here) that he was not charged with manslaughter.... The conventional wisdom seems to be the PA is hoping he will plea-bargin down to manslaughter.

[mrsleeve]

no and it's irrelevant anyway. self defense doesn't shift around like that.

Ummmm. Yeah that's how it works.

Even if you initiated the encounter, as soon as you abandon your position and retreat before a crime is commited, and the other person then pursues you and escalate's the situation by attacking you. You are well with your rights to self defence. (In free states anyway) and deadly force if you are in fear of your life or limb.


And according to several of the local news outlets where. This went down. Yeah. That's what happened

[smooth]

Ummmm. Yeah that's how it works.

Even if you initiated the encounter, as soon as you abandon your position and retreat before a crime is commited, and the other person then pursues you and escalate's the situation by attacking you. You are well with your rights to self defence. (In free states anyway) and deadly force if you are in fear of your life or limb.


And according to several of the local news outlets where. This went down. Yeah. That's what happened

that's how it used to work. those are the types of scenarios that were used to support certain people's opinion that we needed legislature like SYG.

the discussion that locals and pundits having about whether zimmerman and martin were fighting after the confrontation is not because it absolves zimmerman if they were. some may think that, but those people are not legal experts.

if zimmerman confronted martin and did something that created a fear of his life in martin's mind, then martin is legally within his rights under SYG to attack and exert deadly force upon zimmerman, not the other way around.

zimmerman never had grounds for fear. he can't assert a fear of his life on the basis of a young, black male walking down street as a reason to be afraid for his life and safety. he never had the legal right to accost, threaten, or in any way confront martin.

under SYG, the threatened individual has the sole right of retreat not the perpetrator.

that's the relevance of SYG that most of the analysts that you're reading about and may be seeing on tv are getting wrong (if they're saying what you're stating here). that's because people are conflating SYG with gun rights so most people associate the SYG protections to fall on zimmerman. but they don't, they fall on martin according to the facts we have currently available to us.

[z31maniac]

under SYG, the threatened individual has the sole right of retreat not the perpetrator.

Completely wrong.

Once the perpetrator retreats, you are no longer covered by SYG to pursue them back, because you are no longer in fear for your life.

[Morrison]

Is it really that simple though - fear for one's life? One person may fear for their life at a vastly different point than someone else. Person "A" may fear for their life well into a physical confrontation while person "B" may fear for their life simply if someone scary looks their way. The law really shouldn't hinge on one's rationality, but maybe it does.

Even police officers sometimes lose their badge temporarily if they've used a firearm in the line of duty and it was at all questionable. I've seen Det. Stabler lose his badge over far less.

[smooth]

Completely wrong.

Once the perpetrator retreats, you are no longer covered by SYG to pursue them back, because you are no longer in fear for your life.

Completely wrong.

Once the perpetrator retreats, you are no longer covered by SYG to pursue them back, because you are no longer in fear for your life.

There is no universal "Stand Your Ground" law. I was discussing the legal theories embedded in the development of the law's history. Self defense protections don't automatically shift around from person to person during an altercation like mrsleeve was claiming. Each state is different, however, so here is Florida's code regarding when an aggressor is protected or not:

76.041 Use of force by aggressor.—The justification described in the preceding sections of this chapter is not available to a person who:
(1) Is attempting to commit, committing, or escaping after the commission of, a forcible felony; or
(2) Initially provokes the use of force against himself or herself, unless:
(a) Such force is so great that the person reasonably believes that he or she is in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm and that he or she has 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; or
(b) In good faith, the person withdraws from physical contact with the assailant and indicates clearly to the assailant that he or she desires to withdraw and terminate the use of force, but the assailant continues or resumes the use of force.

http://www.flsenate.gov/Laws/Statutes/2011/776.041

From there, you can see that if zimmerman committed a felony upon martin (if he assaulted him or if he brandished his firearm, for example) then he forfeited any claim of stand your ground protection in Florida. 2b is clear that if you assail someone and try to retreat you have to indicate your surrender. That would not be in there if the assailed was required to retreat when the assailant does.

If you are correct and I am not, then explain the difference between "Stand Your Ground" legislation and pre-existing self defense legislation. Try to explain your position and thoughts without resorting to insulting me if you want me to consider your opinion.

[naplesE30]

776.012 Use of force in defense of person.—A person is justified in using force, except deadly force, against another when and to the extent that the person reasonably believes that such conduct is necessary to defend himself or herself or another against the other’s imminent use of unlawful force. However, a person is justified in the use of deadly force and does not have a duty to retreat if: (1) He or she reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the imminent commission of a forcible felony; or (2) Under those circumstances permitted pursuant to s. 776.013. History.—s. 13, ch. 74-383; s. 1188, ch. 97-102; s. 2,


This is the section of the law the defense will use,,,,,,,, again even if this is not allowed, with the murder charge the PA has to prove motive, and intent to kill.