Utah Bob #35998 Posted April 12, 2012 Share Posted April 12, 2012 To me the real question is why anybody should have an opinion or care about this shooting in a Florida town other than the local citizens and authorities. This shooting involved no law enforcement or other public personnel and why it has national attention is strange. It may be a bad shoot or a good one, I don't know. I guess the only opinion I've formed (because it's hard to avoid one with this business everywhere) is that Zimmerman is a real wannabe-type, which is not a good thing to be out there. I don't care who the prosecutor is or who she prays for. That's for the locals. Man, I hate this "nationalization" of all the news! Congress members are talking about closely looking into each state's statutes regarding self-defense and "stand your ground" laws. The case now has gained national importance for that reason. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sheriff Oso, SASS #57788L Posted April 12, 2012 Share Posted April 12, 2012 It is time for us to look at Congress, too. The "ANTI's" will milk this for all it is worth. As for the "rush to judgement" on Zimmerman, remember Richard Jewell, the Atlanta security guard who was the "prime person of interest in the Olympic Bombing"? He was convicted by the media and court of public opinion. He was innocent and died shortly after he was cleared of any wrongdoing. He actually WAS a hero! This week a male Oklahoma High School girl's basketball coach, who was charged 2 years ago with "improper conduct", was cleared of all charges; but he will never coach another team. Convicted by the Public. Perception is reality. As Utah Bob says, this "case" (no matter if it ever goes to trial, gets plea bargained to involuntary manslaughter, or ends with a murder 2 conviction) will be the lynch pin to begin the next phase of dismantling our Constitution and our Constitutional Rights. As noted in another thread, we need to get rid of ALL the manure spreaders! FWIW...YMMV...SOso Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hacker, SASS #55963 Posted April 12, 2012 Share Posted April 12, 2012 To me the real question is why anybody should have an opinion or care about this shooting in a Florida town other than the local citizens and authorities. This shooting involved no law enforcement or other public personnel and why it has national attention is strange. It may be a bad shoot or a good one, I don't know. I guess the only opinion I've formed (because it's hard to avoid one with this business everywhere) is that Zimmerman is a real wannabe-type, which is not a good thing to be out there. I don't care who the prosecutor is or who she prays for. That's for the locals. Man, I hate this "nationalization" of all the news! There are possibly two reasons that I see; 1. is the stand your ground law. 2. could this be racial in some way. (I think it is clear that sharpton thinks this way.) The stand your ground law is most interesting as it affects the evolution of carry permits, castle doctrine and other self defense law nation wide. Then again why would a local LEO involved shooting cause national attention? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Marshal Dan Troop 70448 Posted April 12, 2012 Share Posted April 12, 2012 Congress members are talking about closely looking into each state's statutes regarding self-defense and "stand your ground" laws. The case now has gained national importance for that reason. By keeping this going, also the news media talking about Florida stand your ground, concealed carry, its also going into the hands of the anti-gun group. That's another reason its hitting nationwide. Better pay attention, its also the first time a concealed carry will face the media with pre-judging done by them. It may affect us all. At present in Jacksonville, every 15 minute radio break, starts out with the arrest, and indictment handed down, also stand your ground and the defense use of it. Every 15 minutes! MT Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
S. Quentin Quale, Esq. SASS 9953 Posted April 12, 2012 Share Posted April 12, 2012 Only two people in this sad affair know all the facts. One is dead. One has a right to remain silent. So you have an "information vacuum." Nature abhors a vacuum, so its been filled with hot air. The trial will be interesting. The Prosecution must prove each element of the charge to get a conviction. A claim of Self Defense is an affirmative defense, meaning that Zimmerman will have to break his silence if he wants to assert it. I hope he has a good lawyer; he'll need one. SQQ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
J. Mark Flint #31954 LIFE Posted April 12, 2012 Share Posted April 12, 2012 Well my name has been invoked so I guess I should weigh in. I think the prosecutor has made it harder to get a fair jury. What attorney wants a fair jury, We all want to win, even though a prosecutors oath is a bit different in most states and their job is to seek justice rather than convictions. Mistrials are a different animal as is prosecutorial misconduct-I see grounds for neither here-just really poor judgment Mr. Zimmerman is now going to have extensive legal bills and his reputation has been destroyed forever, regardless of the outcome. If I shot someone in self defense and there was not sufficient grounds for a prosecution, I would hate to have my name dragged through the national media until charges were brought and then to have my life savings depleted trying to defend myself. I don't see sufficient evidence to convict Mr. Zimmerman. Even following Treyvon Martin does not make him the aggressor. He did not do anything to threaten or attack him, he did not draw his gun, there is no evidence that he even displayed the gun or made a threat. Whether or not Mr. Zimmerman's injuries were visible or serious, the legal standard as I understand it is was he in reasonable fear for his life. As I understand it he has claimed that Treyvon Martin was on top of him, beating him as he screamed for help and that he only drew the gun when Treyvon Martin reached for it. You may suspect whatever you want, but absent some reasonable amount of proof to the contrary, there should not be criminal charges. This isn't a gun law question or even a stand your ground question, it is a pure common law self defense issue and Mr. Zimmerman by all accounts was attacked, on the ground in a helpless position and drew his gun while being struck and while the aggressor was reaching for the gun. The question should be was Mr. Zimmerman in fear for his life. I would have been. I'm willing to bet most of those posting here would have been. Keep in mind that the state's burden is to prove their case beyond a reasonable doubt. If the case cannot be made, it should not be brought. It is expensive for the defendant and the state and takes resources away from the state to prosecute crimes for which they have a reasonable chance of a conviction. If you were to believe the media White on black crime is always racist. Black on white crime is never considered racist. Al Sharpton and all other media whores are undermining our legal system. Reverand Sharpton and Reverend Jackson and Reverend Obama all need to be there denouncing black on white and black on black and white on white and tan on ocre offenses at every opportunity. Crime is crime. If you think Mr. Zimmerman should be charged, you might also want to turn in your carry permit and never carry a gun for self defense. Immediately before the attack, Treyvon Martin could have walked away . . . could Mr. Zimmerman? Black men are targeted by police and are the subject of unfair suspicion a disproportionate amount of the time. It is an unfortunate reality that we, as a society, haven't done more to teach our children how to see that we are all the same, regardless of skin color, religious beliefs etc. Treyvon Martin should not be dead, he should be growing up and having a chance to be a productive member of society, but somewhere along the way he learned to respond with anger and violence-his response appears to have led to the shooting and his death. Now the reality is I don't know all the facts-if there is a witness or a statement that the media hasn't disclosed or that I haven't read then all of the above may be wrong. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Red Gauntlet , SASS 60619 Posted April 12, 2012 Share Posted April 12, 2012 As for these "stand your ground" laws; I don't know much about them. I have the impression that they were passed in states that had developed some kinds of case law that said you had to "retreat" in the face of force, etc. We've never had that. In this state, you can use deadly force to protect yourself or a third person from death or grave bodily harm. There's not a lot of stuff about "retreat", etc. The question is: did you have a reasonable apprehension of death or grave bodily harm? As for Congress, whatever posturing might take place, the fact is inescapable that such laws relate to the question of whether or not a homicide is justifiable or not; ie, a homicide under state law. The Congress can't say that a certain thing can't be a defense to a state law. And there can't be "civil rights" violations under Federal statutes without somebody acting under color of law, which this guy ain't. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chantry Posted April 12, 2012 Share Posted April 12, 2012 A lot will depend on the following: the coroner's report, which should indicate an approximate distance of the shooting and the trajectory of the bullet. If there are contact wounds or indications of near contact wounds from the bullet and if the trajectory indicates that Martin was on top of Zimmerman when the gun was fired; if there is medical evidence indicating injuries to the back of Zimmerman's head, definitive proof of who started the physical altercation Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
johny two horse Posted April 13, 2012 Share Posted April 13, 2012 You are universally justified in the NECESSARY use of deadly force when there is a REASONABLE fear of IMMEDIATE or otherwise UNAVOIDABLE danger of DEATH OR SERIOUS BODILY INJURY to the INNOCENT. All of these factors must be present to justify use of deadly force. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jacknife Posted April 13, 2012 Share Posted April 13, 2012 Johny, can ya tell us the definition of "serious bodily injury" please? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Badlands Bob #61228 Posted April 13, 2012 Share Posted April 13, 2012 I don't know about Florida law but Serious Bodily Injury in Georgia is: Shall cause bodily harm to another by depriving him of a member of his body, rendering a member of his body useless, by seriously disfiguring his body or a member thereof, or by causing organic brain damage which renders the body or any member thereof useless. I'm pretty sure Florida would have a similar definition. It's all going to come down to if the jury believes his story and has the guts to find him not guilty.....if that's the case. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sergeant Smokepole #29248L Posted April 13, 2012 Share Posted April 13, 2012 Johny, can ya tell us the definition of "serious bodily injury" please? Simply put, a king sized ass whoopin where you get your butt stomped.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
johny two horse Posted April 13, 2012 Share Posted April 13, 2012 The last two pretty much said it all. Any injury that cripples: permanently disfigures; or could cause death within minutes,hours, days or months. Cuts, broken bones, and internal injuries to the vital organs and brain are considered serious bodily harm. Temporary cosmetic injuries such black eyes, swollen lips, abrasions, surface bruises are not considered serious. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brother King, SASS #69031 Posted April 13, 2012 Share Posted April 13, 2012 If you think Mr. Zimmerman should be charged, you might also want to turn in your carry permit and never carry a gun for self defense. PRECISELY~ and to all the arm chair quarterbacks out there that think a person has to first take an ass-whuppin' before stopping a situation, please refer to universally accepted self-defense laws to wit: your hands and feet are a deadly weapon and so are multiple attackers no matter how they're armed and certainly an attacker who is attempting to get your gun should be considered deadly by anyone able to reason. At the end of the day- here is what we know to be true so far: DERSHOWITZ ON ZIMMERMAN Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gunner Gatlin, SASS 10274L Posted April 13, 2012 Share Posted April 13, 2012 Simply put, a king sized ass whoopin where you get your butt stomped.... Yup... in answer to 'definition of "serious bodily injury" please' GG ~ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
J. Mark Flint #31954 LIFE Posted April 13, 2012 Share Posted April 13, 2012 Keep in mind it is reasonable fear of serious bodily injury, not the actual harm that is incurred. ie; Let's say that you are working in a chemical plant and an unknown person steps around a corner and points a gun at you, you are in fear of serious bodily injury or death-if you respond by stepping on a lever that drops the assailant into a vat of acid leading to his horrific death, you acted in self defense and you are justified without any actual injury to yourself. That being said I am impressed that Mr. Dershowitz apparently read my post and adopted my position on this case LOL Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Utah Bob #35998 Posted April 13, 2012 Share Posted April 13, 2012 Keep in mind it is reasonable fear of serious bodily injury, not the actual harm that is incurred. ie; Let's say that you are working in a chemical plant and an unknown person steps around a corner and points a gun at you, you are in fear of serious bodily injury or death-if you respond by stepping on a lever that drops the assailant into a vat of acid leading to his horrific death, you acted in self defense and you are justified without any actual injury to yourself. That being said I am impressed that Mr. Dershowitz apparently read my post and adopted my position on this case LOL Did you show him your briefs? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Henry T Harrison Posted April 13, 2012 Share Posted April 13, 2012 Yup... in answer to 'definition of "serious bodily injury" please' GG ~ From the Pennsylvania Crimes Code "Serious bodily injury." Bodily injury which creates a substantial risk of death or which causes serious, permanent disfigurement, or protracted loss or impairment of the function of any bodily member or organ. I’m sure that most states use a similar definition Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
J. Mark Flint #31954 LIFE Posted April 17, 2012 Share Posted April 17, 2012 Did you show him your briefs? No Bob, I am brief less Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sergeant Smokepole #29248L Posted April 17, 2012 Share Posted April 17, 2012 No Bob, I am brief less That blinded my mind's eye.............. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bama Red Posted April 17, 2012 Share Posted April 17, 2012 I'll let ya use the bleach as soon as I'm done with it! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brother King, SASS #69031 Posted April 18, 2012 Share Posted April 18, 2012 Frontsight is now posting a weekly blog about the Zimmerman shooting. Here is a link to the first video: FRONTSIGHT VIDEO ZIMMERMAN SHOOTING It's a media interview with a man who nets out the BS in a very well-done concise manner. Scroll down to the bottom of Dr. Piazza's message. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Badlands Bob #61228 Posted April 18, 2012 Share Posted April 18, 2012 If the police chief had come out and given this speech at the beginning of this mess, it probably would have fizzled. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gunner Gatlin, SASS 10274L Posted April 18, 2012 Share Posted April 18, 2012 Frontsight is now posting a weekly blog about the Zimmerman shooting. Here is a link to the first video: FRONTSIGHT VIDEO ZIMMERMAN SHOOTING It's a media interview with a man who nets out the BS in a very well-done concise manner. Scroll down to the bottom of Dr. Piazza's message. GG ~ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hacker, SASS #55963 Posted April 18, 2012 Share Posted April 18, 2012 The only thing I saw that was wrong with Dr Piazzas speech was that in the first minute he referred to George Martin time 0:13. Aside from that he appears to sort the poop in the correct piles. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brother King, SASS #69031 Posted April 18, 2012 Share Posted April 18, 2012 yes, I saw that, too. It's easy to critique speakers...try being one sometime. If you think what happens when the buzzer goes off is unique- pick up a microphone with a camera in your face. For the record, the speaker is not Dr. Piazza. I have no idea who it is. But, he's apparently newsworthy since there are cameras everywhere. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gunner Gatlin, SASS 10274L Posted April 18, 2012 Share Posted April 18, 2012 yes, I saw that, too. It's easy to critique speakers...try being one sometime. If you think what happens when the buzzer goes off is unique- pick up a microphone with a camera in your face. For the record, the speaker is not Dr. Piazza. I have no idea who it is. But, he's apparently newsworthy since there are cameras everywhere. I think he was one of Zimmerman's former lawyers, GG ~ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.