Sig1Hunter Posted March 27, 2012 Posted March 27, 2012 ... HOWEVER, a nuance rests in the "aggressor" language: 776.041 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. There is A LOT of detail in this language but a couple of things stand out that implicate the following questions: A. Was Zimmerman the aggressor? Which implicates 2 clarifying questions - 1. Is the act of following an individual against the admonitions of police when the individual being followed hasn't perpetrated any articulable illegal act considered being "an aggressor"? AND 2. There is an audio tape that suggests that Zimmerman called Martin a "coon." Does that tape say waht it is purported to say? http://fcir.org/2012/03/23/on-zimmermans-911-call-what-sounds-like-a-racial-slur/ IF he called him a racial slur, Zimmerman is the aggressor. Period. Him following someone (something he is legally able to do) in no way casts him as an "aggressor". Disregarding instructions of a NON-SWORN member of a police department - e.g. the 911 operator - is something he is within his rights to do. The 911 operator has no legal authority over anyone. That is what a lot of people seem to be missing. It would be different if that operator was a sworn police officer, but in this case it was not. As far as the supposed racial slur, how does someone using their first amendment right amount to prima facie evidence that he is the aggressor? Sure, if that is what he said it would be disgusting. It also may go to his state of mind at the time, but in and of itself it does not make him the aggressor. Otherwise, I am intrigued by your legal analysis.
Joe Miner Posted March 27, 2012 Posted March 27, 2012 If Martin took a punch at Zimmerman, knocked him down, etc., the only thing that that demonstrates, from a legal standpoint, and with respect to this issue, is that Zimmerman got his ass kicked. Let's introduce some legal analysis: Florida Law 776.012 Use of force in defense of person. - ...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. In this instance, the immunity (or "Stand Your Ground" portion) is activated as per: 776.032 Immunity from criminal prosecution and civil action for justifiable use of force. (1) A person who uses force as permitted in s. 776.012, s. 776.013, or s. 776.031 is justified in using such force and is immune from criminal prosecution and civil action for the use of such force HOWEVER, a nuance rests in the "aggressor" language: 776.041 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. There is A LOT of detail in this language but a couple of things stand out that implicate the following questions: A. Was Zimmerman the aggressor? Which implicates 2 clarifying questions - 1. Is the act of following an individual against the admonitions of police when the individual being followed hasn't perpetrated any articulable illegal act considered being "an aggressor"? AND 2. There is an audio tape that suggests that Zimmerman called Martin a "coon." Does that tape say waht it is purported to say? http://fcir.org/2012/03/23/on-zimmermans-911-call-what-sounds-like-a-racial-slur/ IF he called him a racial slur, Zimmerman is the aggressor. Period. In that instance, Zimmerman loses his 776.032 protection and has to fulfill one of the exceptions articulated in 776.041 (a) and (b) Under 776.041 Zimmerman would have to had to try to escape (and their relative body weights would come into play), OR he would have had to clearly announce his intent to withdraw from the confrontation. Simply walking away is insufficient to convey that withdrawal IF Zimmerman is considered the aggressor (based on the tape). The audio tape has been sent to the FBI for analysis. If Zimmerman called Martin a "coon," it is going to be an uphill battlefor him. B. Did Zimmerman reasonably believe that "that such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself"? Which implicates proportionality considerations - 1. Reasonableness (to include relative size and weight considerations) 2.Necessity Also (and this is significant), the past history of violence for each party is admissible to demonstrate their physical competencies, disposition, aggressive liklihoods, predilictions, or tendencies, etc. If Zimmerman claims that he was a scared bunny, but the accusations of domestic violence and assault against authority figures are true, he is gonna have an uphill battle on proportionality - reasonableness, and necessity. At the end of the day, NOTHING has changed. As mentioned above, if it is true that Martin took a punch at him or that Zimmerman was getting his ass kicked, it doesn't really impact the above considerations ESPECIALLY if Zimmerman called Martin a "coon." Those claiming that the scales are tipping toward Zimmerman and Martin advocates are being somehow exposed as "wrong" fundamentally misunderstand the law and the how these circumstances fit within the law's complex tapestry. The best thing to do is to let the matter unfold fully. Zimmerman deserves a fair and impartial adjudication of these issues. Martin's family does too. From a legal perspective though, I think Zimmerman is sunk if that audio tape comes back with his voice uttering a racial slur. But that is a big IF, and conditioned upon criteria that are still subject to analysis. And that still presupposes grand jury findings, the legal battle over items of admissibility, casting of legal doubt, etc. Long way to go folks. Media is off-course. To them, Dave is still getting good PR from that Goliath thing. But everyone here thinking that a fight circumscribes this issue has never seen the inside of a courtroom as an advocate. That fight means little to nothing. Florida jury instructions for those interested: http://www.floridasupremecourt.org/jury_instructions/chapters/entireversion/onlinejurryinstructions.pdf Section 3.6 is the relevant section. You should probably be quiet any time now.
Rob's House Posted March 27, 2012 Posted March 27, 2012 This is a feeble attempt for an analogy. This has nothing to do with speculation idiot. You can't even grasp the point of what I was saying because you can't think anywhere outside of the small box it's in. Then you talk about someone else injecting their speculation. For a good example of a post that injects a persons speculation see your "Dear liberals" post. And Tardfest 2012 continues. Everything that seemed so obvious to you is now shown to be wrong yet you pontificate as though you've been vindicated. It's sad really; your lack of self-awareness and critical thinking. As per liberalism, rather than taking a critical look at your theory you cling to it like a cracker clings to his gun & his bible; even in the face of contradictory evidence. I'm sure you could tell us all about global warming. And also, this word "speculation"; I don't think it means what you think it means.
erynthered Posted March 27, 2012 Posted March 27, 2012 You should probably be quiet any time now. He thinks he's Henry Fonda.
B-Man Posted March 27, 2012 Posted March 27, 2012 Racial-Relations Regression FTA: The narrative of the shooting unfortunately changes every 24 hours, which suggests the media saw a preliminary narrative it liked and then adorned it in a manner to ensure sensationalism and polarization. Now as the collective fit subsides, the vigilante becomes a neighborhood watch designee; the German-named, white racist shooter is found to be half-Hispanic with plenty of friends of all races; Trayvon Martin is not, as his widely-circulated photo suggests, a pre-teen with an unblemished school record, but a 6’ 2” 17-year old who was currently on school suspension, with some evidence of possible past drug possession and assorted disciplinary problems. {snip} The media cannot explain why in this particular case some outlets have adopted the new rubric “white Hispanic” — what is the reasoning behind that, and why all of a sudden now? Nor can it explain why it continues to run photos that give readers the impression that Mr. Martin was a pre-teen middle schooler, when a recent photo is accessible. The president cannot explain by which criteria he chooses to weigh in on controversial local issues, since to do so by definition makes them “teachable moments” and thus prompts the question: why this case (e.g., or a Gates or Fluke incident), and not others? Fairly or not, by now the president, through his past selective editorializing, has lost a great deal of credibility as a national healer. While it is natural that African-American activists need answers as to why the armed assailant Mr. Zimmerman was not charged in the shooting, they also cannot explain why their attention is not in commensurate fashion focused on the far greater number of young black males gunned down, many just last week in Chicago, by other black males. Nor can they explain to the non-African-American community why the far greater instances of black-on-white violent crime supports any such notion of a supposed war on young black males. The net result of the demagoguery will be more racial polarization, as African-Americans believe that young black males are unfairly stereotyped by society and treated less fairly by police, while non-African-Americans will only be further convinced that the African-American leadership is not concerned with the vastly inordinate rates of black violent crime, given the small percentage of the African-American community within the general population, much less the much higher rates of black-on-white crime – and as both sides argue either for more money to be invested in social programs, or that too much has already been spent in counter-productive fashion. NRO
Juror#8 Posted March 27, 2012 Posted March 27, 2012 Him following someone (something he is legally able to do) in no way casts him as an "aggressor". Disregarding instructions of a NON-SWORN member of a police department - e.g. the 911 operator - is something he is within his rights to do. The 911 operator has no legal authority over anyone. That is what a lot of people seem to be missing. It would be different if that operator was a sworn police officer, but in this case it was not. I didn't say that it did. It was a query. As far as the supposed racial slur, how does someone using their first amendment right amount to prima facie evidence that he is the aggressor? Sure, if that is what he said it would be disgusting. It also may go to his state of mind at the time, but in and of itself it does not make him the aggressor. Otherwise, I am intrigued by your legal analysis. Are you saying that you made it though law school not knowing that "fighting words" is not protected speech? Or do you feel that racial slurs are not fighting words (which is a reasonable legal angle to take actually)? Secondly, IF Zimmerman hurled a racial slur at Martin, in concert with him following him, without an articulable crime having been committed, at night, against the admonition of police, replete with a weapon - it is going to create, at least, a rebuttable presumption of Zimmerman being the initial aggressor. Disagree? You should probably be quiet any time now. Grown folks are talking B word. Be quiet. Sorry Juror, you're wrong on this. If events transpired as the witness account say it's an open & shut case for self defense. Regardless of what happened prior to the confrontation, when Zimmerman is going back to his car and Trayvon approaches him Trayvon becomes the aggressor. And I think if someone had just broken your nose and was sitting on your chest repeatedly slamming your head against the concrete I think realize how reasonable it is to fear imminent bodily harm. At that point you can no longer retreat and thus stand your ground wouldn't apply. And you can't claim self defense for Trayvon because Zimmerman (I.e. The danger) was retreating. He can't even claim he was standing his ground because he was moning forward. Constituent conference time. I'll get to this this afternoon.
Joe Miner Posted March 27, 2012 Posted March 27, 2012 Grown folks are talking B word. Be quiet. Yes, and unfortunately the jumbled mess of **** you keep spewing is interrupting them. Shhh...
Rob's House Posted March 27, 2012 Posted March 27, 2012 Are you saying that you made it though law school not knowing that "fighting words" is not protected speech? Or do you feel that racial slurs are not fighting words (which is a reasonable legal angle to take actually)? Secondly, IF Zimmerman hurled a racial slur at Martin, in concert with him following him, without an articulable crime having been committed, at night, against the admonition of police, replete with a weapon - it is going to create, at least, a rebuttable presumption of Zimmerman being the initial aggressor. Disagree? If he shouted it at Trayvon it would certainly hurt his case because even though that would not in and of itself give Trayvon the right to attack him, it would certainly damage his ability to claim self defense after baiting him into the attack. The problem is that he said whatever he said (I think it was "ass holes" which would explain why they've stopped playing the 911 tape and mentioning that part on the news) to the dispatcher and unless he was right up on the guy when he said it, which by the very nature of the conversation it is clear he wasn't, there is no way Trayvon could have heard that, and therefore it wouldn't be fighting words.
Juror#8 Posted March 27, 2012 Posted March 27, 2012 Yes, and unfortunately the jumbled mess of **** you keep spewing is interrupting them. Shhh... Either articulate your disagreement or don't. But telling someone to "be quiet" is no different than a curse word - it's just an inarticulate way to express dissatisfaction or disagreement with a position. What is "jumbled"? What is "mess"? What specifically do you disagree with? Or are you just backwoods hick who thinks justice was served and aren't interested in analyzing the law? And yes, despite the bolded point above, I called you "B word." And the position of yours that I disagree with is your lack of one. If he shouted it at Trayvon it would certainly hurt his case because even though that would not in and of itself give Trayvon the right to attack him, it would certainly damage his ability to claim self defense after baiting him into the attack. The problem is that he said whatever he said (I think it was "ass holes" which would explain why they've stopped playing the 911 tape and mentioning that part on the news) to the dispatcher and unless he was right up on the guy when he said it, which by the very nature of the conversation it is clear he wasn't, there is no way Trayvon could have heard that, and therefore it wouldn't be fighting words. Now we're getting into the realm of the conjectural. This is what I'm interested in the advocates clarifying during trial via witness statements, relative party placements, etc. Right now, we're just throwing around theories with few supportive facts. But the fact is, something, that some have construed as a racist statement, was said. The lawyers will have to figure out the impact.
Joe Miner Posted March 27, 2012 Posted March 27, 2012 Either articulate your disagreement or don't. But telling someone to "be quiet" is no different than a curse word - it's just an inarticulate way to express dissatisfaction or disagreement with a position. What is "jumbled"? What is "mess"? What specifically do you disagree with? Or are you just backwoods hick who thinks justice was served and aren't interested in analyzing the law? And yes, despite the bolded point above, I called you "B word." And the position of yours that I disagree with is your lack of one. Now we're getting into the realm of the conjectural. This is what I'm interested in the advocates clarifying during trial via witness statements, relative party placements, etc. Right now, we're just throwing around theories with few supportive facts. But the fact is, something, that some have construed as a racist statement, was said. The lawyers will have to figure out the impact. I also don't often talk to my 4 year old about calculus or physics. Shh...
Rob's House Posted March 27, 2012 Posted March 27, 2012 (edited) Now we're getting into the realm of the conjectural. This is what I'm interested in the advocates clarifying during trial via witness statements, relative party placements, etc. Right now, we're just throwing around theories with few supportive facts. But the fact is, something, that some have construed as a racist statement, was said. The lawyers will have to figure out the impact. Somewhat, of course, most all of this is conjectural on some level because we weren't there. But I'm not basing that assumption on what someone else said, but what I heard on the 911 call. Edited March 27, 2012 by Rob's House
DC Tom Posted March 27, 2012 Posted March 27, 2012 You should probably be quiet any time now. Actually, he's doing a very good job of showing why it's not an open-and-shut case once it gets inside a courthouse. I particularly liked the "ESPECIALLY if Zimmerman called Martin a "coon."" observation. It's incendiary and shouldn't even matter in a self-defense argument unless one can demonstrate it's germane to the case. But in reality, in a court room you put that out in front of a jury because, frankly, it sells.
Bigfatbillsfan Posted March 27, 2012 Posted March 27, 2012 New Black Panthers and their $10,000 (for now) bounty on George Zimmerman---Dead or Alive. Wow man, just... Wow! If the leader of the New Black Panthers is openly calling for the head of another person I don't know why he hasn't been arrested yet.
GaryPinC Posted March 27, 2012 Posted March 27, 2012 Are you !@#$ing kidding me?? You would base your vote on this case?? Please tell me thats not true. My vote will not be simply based on this case. There are things about Obama I like and things I do not. I am not enamored with the man but currently think he's better than any of the Republican candidates. If Zimmerman is fully exonerated after a host of investigations we run the risk of racial violence. Obama decided to make this case personal, as our leader he therefore needs to responsibly step up and make every effort to diffuse the situation before it explodes. If Zimmerman is exonerated and all the African American activists/leaders just shut up and slink away I feel we will see racial violence and that these leaders will be condoning it with their inaction. That would be the tipping point for me wanting Obama out. If you think that's too simple or too harsh, well that's how I feel about it. Disclosure: In my 20's I was much more of a conservative than I am now at 42. I am a registered independent and consider myself just right of center.
3rdnlng Posted March 27, 2012 Posted March 27, 2012 Wow man, just... Wow! If the leader of the New Black Panthers is openly calling for the head of another person I don't know why he hasn't been arrested yet. Probably for the same reason the New Black Panthers weren't prosecuted for voter intimidation in Philadelphia back in '08.
Bigfatbillsfan Posted March 27, 2012 Posted March 27, 2012 And Tardfest 2012 continues. Everything that seemed so obvious to you is now shown to be wrong yet you pontificate as though you've been vindicated. It's sad really; your lack of self-awareness and critical thinking. As per liberalism, rather than taking a critical look at your theory you cling to it like a cracker clings to his gun & his bible; even in the face of contradictory evidence. I'm sure you could tell us all about global warming. And also, this word "speculation"; I don't think it means what you think it means. You obviously either can't read my posts or are unable to comprehend what they mean. So if you would 'tardfest to come to a close you might want to stop posting since you are a complete 'tard. As for the bold print. Really? are you so stupid as to write crap like that? And yes, I can tell you all about global warming. Just start a thread. You may want to look up words like, argument, speculation, opinion, assertion, ect. After you find out what they mean you can start practicing using them in a sentence to see how they are applied.
Joe Miner Posted March 27, 2012 Posted March 27, 2012 Actually, he's doing a very good job of showing why it's not an open-and-shut case once it gets inside a courthouse. I particularly liked the "ESPECIALLY if Zimmerman called Martin a "coon."" observation. It's incendiary and shouldn't even matter in a self-defense argument unless one can demonstrate it's germane to the case. But in reality, in a court room you put that out in front of a jury because, frankly, it sells. I'm not saying it's an open and shut case. He just keeps asking questions that he doesn't have answers to with assumptions that the police and DA haven't already asked and answered those questions and additional ones. He's no better than the idiot reporters that keep writing stories that speculate there's more to this story than the police want you know. And that undisclosed knowledge obviously points to something sinister. There's obviously more to this story than the police are telling the public. There always is. Why? Because cases aren't tried in the court of public opinion. But let's keep making assumptions and vilifying one side or the other before anything even gets to trial. Anything can always happen in a court of law regardless of facts.
erynthered Posted March 27, 2012 Posted March 27, 2012 The parents are heading to DC. http://www.clickorlando.com/news/Parents-of-slain-Florida-teen-to-appear-on-Capitol-Hill/-/1637132/9717200/-/8r2hugz/-/index.html
IDBillzFan Posted March 27, 2012 Posted March 27, 2012 The parents are heading to DC. http://www.clickorlando.com/news/Parents-of-slain-Florida-teen-to-appear-on-Capitol-Hill/-/1637132/9717200/-/8r2hugz/-/index.html So Congress has determined this is a hate crime? Gee, I guess due process is useless these days.
Rob's House Posted March 27, 2012 Posted March 27, 2012 The parents are heading to DC. http://www.clickorlando.com/news/Parents-of-slain-Florida-teen-to-appear-on-Capitol-Hill/-/1637132/9717200/-/8r2hugz/-/index.html CNN enhanced the sound of the 911 call and several members of CNN's editorial staff repeatedly reviewed the tape, but could reach no consensus on whether Zimmerman used a slur.
Recommended Posts