or Connect
Styleforum › Forums › General › Current Events, Power and Money › killing Trayvon
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

killing Trayvon - Page 153

post #2281 of 6250
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ataturk View Post

She was convicted of aggravated assault, not attempted murder. That's just typical media sloppiness. It's always one or the other with them.
Anyway, she claimed self-defense, but the jury didn't buy it. According to the husband, she had apparently reconciled with him and convinced him to lie in a deposition to support her defense -- that's where the stuff about him beating her and his other "baby mommas" comes from.
I guess I can see now why they threw the book at her, if that's true.

Read another article about this, she had been convicted of assaulting her husband in the past too.
post #2282 of 6250
Ataturk, it wasn't my intent to define any law. My real purpose was to point out that there are legal ramifications for actions taken that can have a negative impact on other actions taken down the road. You mentioned a few things that pertain to this. Going through a bad neighborhood is not against any law that I'm aware of. Actively following someone around can get you charged with harassment and stalking correct? Yelling and screaming at someone is inciting isn't it? Am I not correct in saying that you can end up charged with some kind of misdeameanor for that? Initiating an assault should be self explanatory but apparently not given what you find in the news. You talked about a perfect case of self defense. That is all I'm really interested in for obvious reasons. If we teach people that it's OK to be a dick in public or if they are breaking laws it's OK to use lethal force if you get your ass in sling how well do you think that'll go over? You don't have to answer that since the answer is obvious. I'm obligated to instruct people on the when where how's and why of using lethal force in a perfect self defense scenario. It's an absolute legal snakepit for sure even when you are 100% in the right.

The Zimmerman case again IMO is not 100% self defense.
post #2283 of 6250
Quote:
Originally Posted by Crane's View Post

Actively following someone around can get you charged with harassment and stalking correct?

Not exactly. Doing so repeatedly and persistently would be stalking. Doing it once would not.
post #2284 of 6250
Quote:
Originally Posted by munchausen View Post

Not exactly. Doing so repeatedly and persistently would be stalking. Doing it once would not.

OK but that's not the point. My point is part of establishing your claim of an absolute self defense situation means through no fault of your own. I'm not talking about being in the wrong part of town kind of thing. That's a tactical/situational awareness problem. I'm talking about any action that can be construed as instigating a situation that could lead to some form of conflict. For example being in an ethnic neighborhood and shouting out all kinds of racial slurs and so on. Hey it's your right to free speech right? Next thing you know you're getting assaulted by someone because of you're right to said free speech. All of a sudden it gets to the point where you think you're going to get killed so you pull a gun and shoot. Do you really think that a jury is going to go along with your claim of self defense? Do you really think the prosecutor will go along with it either?

Now if you remove the freedom of speech malarky above and you are just walking along minding your own business. Someone out of the blue jumps you and it gets to the point of where all the elements come together to justify using deadly force in a self defense situation. You act on this at that moment and end up killing the person who jumped you. Now you can say through no fault of your own, along with acting immediately when you thought you were going to get killed is a pretty solid absolute self defense situation.

The only difference in the scenarios is you did something that caused a confrontation and what you did may not be against the law. (Not sure on that though) Stupid and dumb for sure. The outcomes of these two situations IMO is in one you get to go to court and face some serious charges and the other there won't be any charges.

Yeah it can make no sense at all but that's just the way these things play out. As our attorney/instructor says it doesn't have to make sense, it's just the law.
post #2285 of 6250
Let's just do a little thought experiment. Zimmerman can't claim self-defense because he's the aggressor. Let's test this idea.

Take the story at his word, more or less. He followed Martin, looked around for him, then Martin comes out of the darkness, approaches him, punches him in the face, jumps on him and starts banging his head on the concrete. Zimmerman pulls out his gun to shoot Martin and...

Martin grabs the gun away and shoots Zimmerman dead.

Since Zimmerman is the aggressor, Martin walks on self-defense?

Give me a break!

Edit: and before some smarty pants points it out, I know about mutual combat (i.e., whether neither party can claim self-defense because they both wanted to fight). This ain't it. In fact, it's illustrative of why Zimmerman isn't an aggressor--because he didn't want to fight (duh).
Edited by Ataturk - 5/13/12 at 9:28pm
post #2286 of 6250
OK but that's not what happened. That's only part of the story. From what I've read there was an intial contact. Then Zimmerman called the police to report a person he thought was suspicious of something. During that call he said he was following Martin around to more or less keep an eye on him. The police told him to stop that activity and rightfully so. He did not follow police instructions and then there was the second encounter which went bad all the way around. Call it what you want but he went looking for a fight so to speak. This is the reason why he's facing criminal charges. Yeah so he was involved in a neighborhood watch program of some type. Yeah what a noble thing to do but it doesn't matter how noble anything is. Much wrong has been done in the name of noble causes.

The whole through no fault of your own little detail to maintain an absolute self defense position means exactly that and it would seem that case studies bears this out. Right wrong or indifferent it's how it goes. 2 million times a year CCW holders end up in a self defense situation. The vast majority are diffused by either the threat of using a gun or actually displaying it. It's a fairly rare occurence that a CCW holder fires their gun. We never really hear about these events in the news. We only hear about the few cases where things go wrong somehow.
post #2287 of 6250
Quote:
Originally Posted by Crane's View Post

My point is part of establishing your claim of an absolute self defense situation means through no fault of your own . . . it's just the law.

This is simply incorrect. You are misunderstanding or misinterpreting the law. It might effect a jury but it shouldn't.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Crane's View Post

Then Zimmerman called the police to report a person he thought was suspicious of something.The police told him to stop that activity and rightfully so. He did not follow police instructions and then there was the second encounter which went bad all the way around.
The whole through no fault of your own little detail to maintain an absolute self defense position means exactly thatand it would seem that case studies bears this out.

Your understanding of the facts of the case are incorrect. And again, the bold is incorrect.
post #2288 of 6250
Where do you get "through no fault of your own" from? That's nowhere in the law.
post #2289 of 6250
From MO revised statutes:

563.026. 1. Unless inconsistent with other provisions of this chapter defining justifiable use of physical force, or with some other provision of law, conduct which would otherwise constitute any crime other than a class A felony or murder is justifiable and not criminal when it is necessary as an emergency measure to avoid an imminent public or private injury which is about to occur by reason of a situation occasioned or developed through no fault of the actor, and which is of such gravity that, according to ordinary standards of intelligence and morality, the desirability of avoiding the injury outweighs the desirability of avoiding the injury sought to be prevented by the statute defining the crime charged.

In my State that phrase is written into the law. Since it appears that there is no legal definition offered in MO statutes one should take the term literally. No fault means you did nothing to end up in the situation.

Now back to FLA law.

I didn't find the phrase mentioned above in FLA's use of force law. I did find this though which seems to either validate or damn Zimmerman's claim to self defense.

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.

History.—s. 13, ch. 74-383; s. 1190, ch. 97-102.

On one hand it says you can't claim self defense if you provoke (define provoke) but then it says it's OK if it really hits the fan. What a mess. I still don't think it's going to go well for Zimmerman and I really hope FLA revises their laws and method of attaining CCW permits. I know why they made it so easy way back when but those days are over. Almost every State allows CCW with many of them recognizing other State's permits.

And just for the record I'm also in favor of a nationwide standard concerning CCW law, use of force law along with uniform definitions.
post #2290 of 6250
Well, I suppose it's good that you're a hawker of e-wares rather than a lawyer. again, you don't understand what "no fault" means or how the idea of being the "initial aggressor" applies.

In any case I'll waste one more post on this. The whole CCW horse than you're beating to death? Totally a red herring.. The standard for claiming self-defense is the same for CCW and non-CCW holders alike.

Oh, and you only cut and pasted part of the relevant statutes:


Use of force in defense of persons.

563.031. 1. A person may, subject to the provisions of subsection 2 of this section, use physical force upon another person when and to the extent he or she reasonably believes such force to be necessary to defend himself or herself or a third person from what he or she reasonably believes to be the use or imminent use of unlawful force by such other person, unless:

(1) The actor was the initial aggressor; except that in such case his or her use of force is nevertheless justifiable provided:

(a) He or she has withdrawn from the encounter and effectively communicated such withdrawal to such other person but the latter persists in continuing the incident by the use or threatened use of unlawful force; or

(b) He or she is a law enforcement officer and as such is an aggressor pursuant to section 563.046; or

(c) The aggressor is justified under some other provision of this chapter or other provision of law;

(2) Under the circumstances as the actor reasonably believes them to be, the person whom he or she seeks to protect would not be justified in using such protective force;

(3) The actor was attempting to commit, committing, or escaping after the commission of a forcible felony.

2. A person may not use deadly force upon another person under the circumstances specified in subsection 1 of this section unless:

(1) He or she reasonably believes that such deadly force is necessary to protect himself, or herself or her unborn child, or another against death, serious physical injury, or any forcible felony;

(2) Such force is used against a person who unlawfully enters, remains after unlawfully entering, or attempts to unlawfully enter a dwelling, residence, or vehicle lawfully occupied by such person; or

(3) Such force is used against a person who unlawfully enters, remains after unlawfully entering, or attempts to unlawfully enter private property that is owned or leased by an individual claiming a justification of using protective force under this section.

3. A person does not have a duty to retreat from a dwelling, residence, or vehicle where the person is not unlawfully entering or unlawfully remaining. A person does not have a duty to retreat from private property that is owned or leased by such individual.

4. The justification afforded by this section extends to the use of physical restraint as protective force provided that the actor takes all reasonable measures to terminate the restraint as soon as it is reasonable to do so.

5. The defendant shall have the burden of injecting the issue of justification under this section. If a defendant asserts that his or her use of force is described under subdivision (2) of subsection 2 of this section, the burden shall then be on the state to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant did not reasonably believe that the use of such force was necessary to defend against what he or she reasonably believed was the use or imminent use of unlawful force.

(L. 1977 S.B. 60, A.L. 1993 S.B. 180, A.L. 2007 S.B. 62 & 41, A.L. 2010 H.B. 1692, et al. merged with H.B. 2081)
Edited by NorCal - 5/14/12 at 6:24pm
post #2291 of 6250
Quote:
Originally Posted by NorCal View Post

Well, I suppose it's good that you're a hawker of e-wares rather than a lawyer.
In any case I'll waste one more post on this. The whole CCW horse than you're beating to death? Totally a red herring.. The standard for claiming self-defense is the same for CCW and non-CCW holders alike.

I heard the same sort of comments about that guy and girl self defense case that was caught on tape. I said it was a clear cut case of self defense and as usual I got the you're full of it kind of comments. When it was all said and done that's what it ended up being. When this one is over I guess we will see who ends up being right and the reasons why the case went one way or another.

And just to set you straight. I never said there was a difference between the two. This case involves a CCW holder so all my comments were made in that light. It amazes me that I hear nothing but pompous chest beating from the lawyers yet there's little or no explanation of why I'm so wrong in how I view this situation. I've heard crap about common sense but as of yet I haven't seen that as well. What I do see is the typical nitpicking bullshit over semantics versus actually discussing the issue at hand. I also get sick of the let's ignore certain aspects of the situation in order to prove a point. How typical and how unwise. I take it you're a lawyer. Is this how you operate? Do you tell your clients what they want to hear or what they need to hear? Do you ignore certain aspects of the case and hope they magically disappear or do you give all aspects the due diligence they deserve?

Nice try at trying to dicredit what I've said because you think I'm just a hawker of e-wares. That's a typical response from someone who really has no leg to stand on in a conversation. I believe they call that argumentum ad hominem but then again what do I know? Tell me, how well does that go over in court? LOL.

If you're so smart then get off the what constitutes an act of self defense and explain what through no fault of your own means and in the case of Florida's verbage what provoke means. While you're at it explain to me what happens when you do not follow police instructions to stop following an individual and it ends up turning ugly and somebody ends up dead. If a dumb ass hawker of e wares can apply a little common sense and say you're in a heap of trouble why can't you? If this is such a clear cut case of self defense then why does Zimmerman have to defend himself on a second degree murder charge?
Edited by Crane's - 5/15/12 at 6:34am
post #2292 of 6250
Speaking of standards Norcal, do you really think that your average everyday citizen is held to the same standards as a person with a CCW permit if they kill someone in self defense? I'll go a step further, how about CCW permit holder versus a CCW instructor? It should be the same same but the reality is that it doesn't work that way in the real world. Just for fun let's add a comparison of polar opposites in a civilian scenario involving lethal use of force in a self defense situation. One person is just your average everyday citizen and the other is an ex Navy SEAL, retired law enforcement officer and currently is involved in advanced firearms training and is a CCW instructor. Are you seriously going to tell me that these people will be held to the same standard?

Don't bore me with a philosophical answer, IMO they aren't worth two cents in a real world application.

Nice ninja edit Norcal. I guess I'll play as well. So what does unless mean? How about provided?

From MO's statutes as provided by Norcal...

(a) He or she has withdrawn from the encounter and effectively communicated such withdrawal to such other person but the latter persists in continuing the incident by the use or threatened use of unlawful force; or

(b) He or she is a law enforcement officer and as such is an aggressor pursuant to section 563.046; or

(c) The aggressor is justified under some other provision of this chapter or other provision of law;

(2) Under the circumstances as the actor reasonably believes them to be, the person whom he or she seeks to protect would not be justified in using such protective force;

(3) The actor was attempting to commit, committing, or escaping after the commission of a forcible felony.

About the only thing I see here that's relevent is (a). This deals with the breaking up of an intial agressive action that's your fault. Retreating and verbalizing that the fight or whatever is over is the end of that cycle of conflict. Now if the other person decides to agressively come after you then another cycle of conflict is initiated. This time around you didn't start it so claiming through no fault of your own is valid and the little exception known as (a) doesn't apply. So right back to square one we go, except this time I'm backed up by your very own post.

Basically if you have no valid claim to any of the exceptions listed above you're screwed.

Section two deals with the when where and why's of deadly force and is self explanatory. The rest of the statute is irrelevent to this conversation.

I don't think you're an attorney. Are you? If so how is it that I can figure this out and you can't?
Edited by Crane's - 5/15/12 at 9:56am
post #2293 of 6250

Just wondering, can anyone prove, or has anyone claimed, whether Z stopped following/observing T after he was told he need not continue (not "told to stop", which keeps getting repeated incessantly) following/observing? He said "ok". If he started heading back to his car at that point, I can't see where he did anything wrong (unless he then confronted/assaulted T, mutual combat). To say otherwise would be to say that no one should ever try to carefully check out something suspicious in a place where he has the right to be (in fact his neighbors expressly asked him to check out suspicious events). None of the gun stuff is relevant at all to that actually. If Z hadn't been armed, and (for the sake of argument) got confronted and punched on the way back to his car, he would still have every right to defend himself. Just being nosy is not threatening behavior, and the provable facts I've heard so far basically point to Z being nosy.

post #2294 of 6250
What does the term mean to you J. To me it means it is unnecessary for you to continue "X". It's not a direct command but it certainly is a strong indicator that the local authorities don't want you involved in something. It's also come to my attention that Zimmermans CCW permit may have not been valid at the time of the shooting. I can neither confirm or deny this but it's obvious if that's the case it adds more problems to Zimmermans defense.
post #2295 of 6250
Quote:
Originally Posted by Crane's View Post

Speaking of standards Norcal, do you really think that your average everyday citizen is held to the same standards as a person with a CCW permit if they kill someone in self defense? I'll go a step further, how about CCW permit holder versus a CCW instructor?

In a criminal court, yes, absolutely. Why wouldn't they be?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Current Events, Power and Money
Styleforum › Forums › General › Current Events, Power and Money › killing Trayvon