Getbig.com: American Bodybuilding, Fitness and Figure
Getbig Main Boards => Politics and Political Issues Board => Topic started by: 240 is Back on May 23, 2012, 05:05:27 AM
-
And yes, you can provoke a fight and still defend yourself.
This might be what the entire Trayvon shooting boils down to - Can you start a fight, begin losing, then legally shoot the other person?
Aside from opinion, can anyone post some actual legal cases where a person chased and/or started the fight, started losing, and used his weapon - and was not charged, or found not guilty? Or cases that show the opposite? Thanks!
-
One of the more absurd sentences I've ever read, that's for sure.
It essentially means that anyone that defends themselves from your attacks can be killed.
-
I dont agree with that.
I dont believe any jury would say its ok to initiate a physical confrontation and then kill the guy defending himself.
However, its going to come down to "was Trayvon justified in following Zimmerman once he gave up and headed back to his truck, and was he justified in initiating physical contact", as they have to prove Zimmermans story false.
-
I dont agree with that.
I dont believe any jury would say its ok to initiate a physical confrontation and then kill the guy defending himself.
However, its going to come down to "was Trayvon justified in following Zimmerman once he gave up and headed back to his truck, and was he justified in initiating physical contact", as they have to prove Zimmermans story false.
Do you have any evidence Trayvon attacked? Do you haev any evidence zimmerman was headed back to his truck?
We do have lots of evidence zimm was armed, angry, motivated, and pursuing a minor who was fleeing him, though.
Let's put the evidences in 2 piles and see which is stronger.
-
Do you have any evidence Trayvon attacked? Do you haev any evidence zimmerman was headed back to his truck?
We do have lots of evidence zimm was armed, angry, motivated, and pursuing a minor who was fleeing him, though.
Let's put the evidences in 2 piles and see which is stronger.
Sigh.
You are the fucking one that has to have the proof that Zimmerman attacked 1st, not the other way around.
You have zero evidence he was angry, zero evidence he didnt turn around and head back to his truck, and zero evidence that Zimmerman wasnt confronted and attacked after he gave up pursuit.
Sorry broseph, but your on the wrong side of the law with this one. Try thinking logically, and how the system works, and you may actually understand.
But in order to do that, youre going to have to take your blinders off, which I dont see happening.
-
Sigh.
You are the fucking one that has to have the proof that Zimmerman attacked 1st, not the other way around.
You have zero evidence he was angry, zero evidence he didnt turn around and head back to his truck, and zero evidence that Zimmerman wasnt confronted and attacked after he gave up pursuit.
Zero evidence he as angry? He called them fcking punks and assholes. He said they always get away.
i dont understand why the prosecutor isn't following your belief - we can't prove the ghost of abe lincoln didn't attack zimmerman either. maybe that happened too.
-
Zero evidence he as angry? He called them fcking punks and assholes. He said they always get away.
i dont understand why the prosecutor isn't following your belief - we can't prove the ghost of abe lincoln didn't attack zimmerman either. maybe that happened too.
Youre bassackwards on how the criminal system works. Period.
Youve taken the prosecutions stance and are trying to shift the burden of proof on the defense. Thats not how it works.
-
Not a case but found this interesting
Justifiable Homicide
http://crimelawyers.org/Content365.htm
5. Defendant is initial aggressor
A defendant cannot claim self-defense if they created the dangerous situation. For example, if a defendant began a fight, and then the decedent fought back in lawful self-defense, the defendant cannot then claim self-defense in killing.
There are two exceptions to this rule. The first exception to this would be if the initial aggressor communicates that they want to end the fight, and the decedent then continues to attack, the aggressor may then use self-defense as if they had not been the initial aggressor. Another exception is if the defendant began the fight, but the decedent then responded with sudden escalated force, a defendant can then claim self-defense.
-
Just a thought...
What if a person "A" starts a fight with "B" and during the fight "B" pulls out a knife and tries to stab "A" and then "A" pulls out a gun and shoots "B" ?
-
Just a thought...
What if a person "A" starts a fight with "B" and during the fight "B" pulls out a knife and tries to stab "A" and then "A" pulls out a gun and shoots "B" ?
Ozmo are you saying Hoyt Axton is a jealous man?
-
This might be what the entire Trayvon shooting boils down to - Can you start a fight, begin losing, then legally shoot the other person?
Aside from opinion, can anyone post some actual legal cases where a person chased and/or started the fight, started losing, and used his weapon - and was not charged, or found not guilty? Or cases that show the opposite? Thanks!
The law doesn't give a fucking rats ass and in general they are fucking retards and just arrest both parties. they all get hauled in no matter who the fuck started it and it comes down to how good/bad your lawyer is.
-
Not a case but found this interesting
Justifiable Homicide
http://crimelawyers.org/Content365.htm
5. Defendant is initial aggressor
A defendant cannot claim self-defense if they created the dangerous situation. For example, if a defendant began a fight, and then the decedent fought back in lawful self-defense, the defendant cannot then claim self-defense in killing.
There are two exceptions to this rule. The first exception to this would be if the initial aggressor communicates that they want to end the fight, and the decedent then continues to attack, the aggressor may then use self-defense as if they had not been the initial aggressor. Another exception is if the defendant began the fight, but the decedent then responded with sudden escalated force, a defendant can then claim self-defense.
Excellent, thank you for sharing.
-
Excellent, thank you for sharing.
Unfortunatley for Trayvon, they cant prove that Trayvon didnt start the fight, as Zimmermans story goes. Plus, with the eyewitness' who saw Trayvon on top of him beating him down...
There is WELL beyond a reasonable doubt.
-
Unfortunatley for Trayvon, they cant prove that Trayvon didnt start the fight, as Zimmermans story goes. Plus, with the eyewitness' who saw Trayvon on top of him beating him down...
There is WELL beyond a reasonable doubt.
They can't prove a 3-tittied woman didn't hypnotize them and shoot trayvon while zimmerman was under spell.
I don't buy into the "they can't prove" - cause defense attorneys introduce all sorts of THEORIES all the time, and jurors see thru the bullshit all the time. There is no legal precedent for "If you cannot disprove a defense claim, you have to acquit". Is there?
-
They can't prove a 3-tittied woman didn't hypnotize them and shoot trayvon while zimmerman was under spell.
I don't buy into the "they can't prove" - cause defense attorneys introduce all sorts of THEORIES all the time, and jurors see thru the bullshit all the time. There is no legal precedent for "If you cannot disprove a defense claim, you have to acquit". Is there?
Really?
OJ's glove ring a bell?
REALLY?!
-
Really?
OJ's glove ring a bell?
REALLY?!
and it could have gone either way with that OJ jury, right? Nobody would have been surprised if OJ was convicted.
And looking at that case - Fuhrman lied about using the N-word, Fuhrman was the first one over the wall, and OJ had a legal dream team - and it was still a toss up.
So nothing is guaranteed either way. This absolute "you can't disprove so you must acquit" is silly.
-
lol. Good thread. :)
-
One of the more absurd sentences I've ever read, that's for sure.
It essentially means that anyone that defends themselves from your attacks can be killed.
Not a case but found this interesting
Justifiable Homicide
http://crimelawyers.org/Content365.htm
5. Defendant is initial aggressor
A defendant cannot claim self-defense if they created the dangerous situation. For example, if a defendant began a fight, and then the decedent fought back in lawful self-defense, the defendant cannot then claim self-defense in killing.
There are two exceptions to this rule. The first exception to this would be if the initial aggressor communicates that they want to end the fight, and the decedent then continues to attack, the aggressor may then use self-defense as if they had not been the initial aggressor. Another exception is if the defendant began the fight, but the decedent then responded with sudden escalated force, a defendant can then claim self-defense.
-
lol. Good thread. :)
Good for showing just how fucking stupid lynch mob member 240 is. The guy, with his Cracker Jack MBA and college degree, somehow missed every single class on civics and the US justice system. ::)
-
Good for showing just how fucking stupid lynch mob member 240 is. The guy, with his Cracker Jack MBA and college degree, somehow missed every single class on civics and the US justice system. ::)
Definitely not the sharpest pencil. :-\
-
Definitely not the sharpest pencil. :-\
In the shed?
-
In the shed?
(http://deaconodonnell.podbean.com/mf/web/usmhk3/Please-don-t-feed-the-trolls-atsof-547660_170_186.jpg)
-
They can't prove a 3-tittied woman didn't hypnotize them and shoot trayvon while zimmerman was under spell.
I don't buy into the "they can't prove" - cause defense attorneys introduce all sorts of THEORIES all the time, and jurors see thru the bullshit all the time. There is no legal precedent for "If you cannot disprove a defense claim, you have to acquit". Is there?
good thing nobody will be arguing that in the trial then huh?
so what proof do you have again supposition 240?
-
(http://deaconodonnell.podbean.com/mf/web/usmhk3/Please-don-t-feed-the-trolls-atsof-547660_170_186.jpg)
hah, I like that one
-
hah, I like that one
:)
-
good thing nobody will be arguing that in the trial then huh?
so what proof do you have again supposition 240?
defense lawyers introduce all sorts of theories. most are nonsense, and the prosecutor doesn't 'disprove' them.
-
However, its going to come down to "was Trayvon justified in following Zimmerman once he gave up and headed back to his truck, and was he justified in initiating physical contact", as they have to prove Zimmermans story false.
I don't think you understand how the systems works... For Zimmerman to get convicted, the Prosecution has to prove their case beyond a reasonable doubt. You will note, that this doesn't mean they have to prove that the defense's version of events is false.
-
I don't think you understand how the systems works... For Zimmerman to get convicted, the Prosecution has to prove their case beyond a reasonable doubt. You will note, that this doesn't mean they have to prove that the defense's version of events is false.
How can they prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he was out to kill Trayvon if they cant prove his version of the story false?
Seems like the 2 go hand in hand to me. Because if they cant prove that what he said was false, wouldnt there be a reasonable doubt that things may have gone down like he said, which would make it a self-defense claim?
Theres always the chance that they go in there and botch the defense, but IMHO, if his story stays consistent and he doesnt get all crazy, he has a lot more going for him than the prosecution does.
-
How can they prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he was out to kill Trayvon if they cant prove his version of the story false?
Seems like the 2 go hand in hand to me. Because if they cant prove that what he said was false, wouldnt there be a reasonable doubt that things may have gone down like he said, which would make it a self-defense claim?
Theres always the chance that they go in there and botch the defense, but IMHO, if his story stays consistent and he doesnt get all crazy, he has a lot more going for him than the prosecution does.
I don't understand how anyone can look at this situation and not see Zimmerman as the aggressor.
He's coming home from Target. Trayvon walking home with a snack, on his cell phone.
ZImmerman then parks his car. Calls police, agrees to wait at mailbox. Hangs up after "He's running away"...
Then he hangs up and walks (on his own two feet) at least 2 blocks, where he gets into a fight.
He's calling trayvon a punk and an asshole. He said they always get away.
Then we know NOTHING. We don't know who attacked who. We don't know if zimm doubled back, or just plain made that up. We don't know if he did cartwheels down the street or cut thru the backyard and intercepted trayvon to get some answers. That's what everyone here overlooks - many people just introduce zimm's statement of the events as PROOF - this is NOT THE CASE.
Zimm was clearly the agressor leading up to the fight - we can prove that. He said trayon was running away, and he somehow moved 2 blocks in 3 minutes. He was hauling ass.
-
How can they prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he was out to kill Trayvon if they cant prove his version of the story false?
They don't have to prove it false. Flex Wheeler may say he was attacked by ninjas, but I don't have to prove it false to raise reasonable doubt that he actually wasn't.
They just have to convince twelve people to vote for their theory of the crime and that the defense doesn't raise reasonable doubt.
Seems like the 2 go hand in hand to me. Because if they cant prove that what he said was false, wouldnt there be a reasonable doubt that things may have gone down like he said, which would make it a self-defense claim?
No: not being able to prove that what he said was false isn't necessarily reasonable doubt. See the Flex Wheeler example above.
Theres always the chance that they go in there and botch the defense, but IMHO, if his story stays consistent and he doesnt get all crazy, he has a lot more going for him than the prosecution does.
You cannot make that statement. You aren't privy to the evidence the prosecution has and cannot evaluate the relative strength of their case because you know nothing about it.
-
They don't have to prove it false. Flex Wheeler may say he was attacked by ninjas, but I don't have to prove it false to raise reasonable doubt that he actually wasn't.
They just have to convince twelve people to vote for their theory of the crime and that the defense doesn't raise reasonable doubt.
No: not being able to prove that what he said was false isn't necessarily reasonable doubt. See the Flex Wheeler example above.
You cannot make that statement. You aren't privy to the evidence the prosecution has and cannot evaluate the relative strength of their case because you know nothing about it.
Dershowitz also explained that Florida’s Stand Your Ground Law might not be an issue in the case, and that even if Zimmerman cannot use the law as a defense, he may still have a legitimate claim of self defense. “A defendant, under Florida law, loses his ‘stand your ground’ defense if he provoked the encounter — but he retains traditional self-defense if he reasonably believed his life was in danger and his only recourse was to employ deadly force,” he wrote.
Thus, if Zimmerman verbally provoked Martin, but Martin then got on top of Zimmerman and banged his head into the ground, broke his nose, bloodied his eyes and persisted in attacking Zimmerman — and if Zimmerman couldn’t protect himself from further attack except by shooting Martin — he would have the right to do that. (The prosecution has already admitted that it has no evidence that Zimmerman started the actual fight.)
-
I'm not sure of the point you're trying to make. That if Zimmerman felt his life was in danger, he could defend himself even if he started the encounter? That's hardly earth-shattering.
-
I'm not sure of the point you're trying to make. That if Zimmerman felt his life was in danger, he could defend himself even if he started the encounter? That's hardly earth-shattering.
Originally I didnt think you could provoke an encounter and claim self-defense. I just found out I was wrong. Which, for Zimmerman, is very, very good.
It may be morally wrong, but that doesnt mean its illegal. From what Ive read, the Prosecution released its evidence, and its not much more valid than anything we knew about prior.
-
Not a case but found this interesting
Justifiable Homicide
http://crimelawyers.org/Content365.htm
5. Defendant is initial aggressor
A defendant cannot claim self-defense if they created the dangerous situation. For example, if a defendant began a fight, and then the decedent fought back in lawful self-defense, the defendant cannot then claim self-defense in killing.
There are two exceptions to this rule. The first exception to this would be if the initial aggressor communicates that they want to end the fight, and the decedent then continues to attack, the aggressor may then use self-defense as if they had not been the initial aggressor. Another exception is if the defendant began the fight, but the decedent then responded with sudden escalated force, a defendant can then claim self-defense.
Judge Butterbean was all over this. :)
Dershowitz also explained that Florida’s Stand Your Ground Law might not be an issue in the case, and that even if Zimmerman cannot use the law as a defense, he may still have a legitimate claim of self defense. “A defendant, under Florida law, loses his ‘stand your ground’ defense if he provoked the encounter — but he retains traditional self-defense if he reasonably believed his life was in danger and his only recourse was to employ deadly force,” he wrote.
Thus, if Zimmerman verbally provoked Martin, but Martin then got on top of Zimmerman and banged his head into the ground, broke his nose, bloodied his eyes and persisted in attacking Zimmerman — and if Zimmerman couldn’t protect himself from further attack except by shooting Martin — he would have the right to do that. (The prosecution has already admitted that it has no evidence that Zimmerman started the actual fight.)
-
Anyway, back to what I was saying, you'd think that simply his story with corroborating evidence would be enough to raise a reasonable doubt.
From what Ive read, the prosecution doesnt have a whole shit ton of evidence contradicting him.