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

killing Trayvon - Page 156

post #2326 of 6250
Quote:
Originally Posted by munchausen View Post

And just because I'm sure you have some imaginative quibble about the meaning of the term 'forcible'

I'm not a lawyer, nor do I know anything about law, or what's going on in this thread. However, I just wanted to say that based on your avatar, Crane's has no idea WTF he's talking about and you are so totally right! Yay bewbies!
post #2327 of 6250
Quote:
Originally Posted by Piobaire View Post

Munch (and other lawyers), from reading what you just wrote it would seem Z walks if the law is applied as written?

I really don't think you need to be an attorney to figure it out. It's all spelled out in fairly plain language. It's the amateur attorneys who are trying to lawyer it up to make the guy guilty.

Honestly, I've gone from thinking the guy was a shithead who was going to get away with something that was wrong but not illegal, to thinking that the guy really didn't do anything all that wrong (maybe some things that were foolish) and is being punished unfairly.
post #2328 of 6250
Quote:
Originally Posted by shibbel View Post

I'm not a lawyer, nor do I know anything about law, or what's going on in this thread. However, I just wanted to say that based on your avatar, Crane's has no idea WTF he's talking about and you are so totally right! Yay bewbies!

Shay Maria adds credibility to all of my statements. If only I could bring her into court with me.
post #2329 of 6250
Quote:
Originally Posted by munchausen View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by Piobaire View Post

Munch (and other lawyers), from reading what you just wrote it would seem Z walks if the law is applied as written?

I really don't think you need to be an attorney to figure it out. It's all spelled out in fairly plain language. It's the amateur attorneys who are trying to lawyer it up to make the guy guilty.

Honestly, I've gone from thinking the guy was a shithead who was going to get away with something that was wrong but not illegal, to thinking that the guy really didn't do anything all that wrong (maybe some things that were foolish) and is being punished unfairly.

As my lawyers always tell me, anything can happen once it goes to the jury. Can a jury still come back with a guilty verdict on second degree?
post #2330 of 6250
Quote:
Originally Posted by munchausen View Post

I really don't think you need to be an attorney to figure it out. It's all spelled out in fairly plain language. It's the amateur attorneys who are trying to lawyer it up to make the guy guilty.
Honestly, I've gone from thinking the guy was a shithead who was going to get away with something that was wrong but not illegal, to thinking that the guy really didn't do anything all that wrong (maybe some things that were foolish) and is being punished unfairly.

Which one is it munchausen? On one hand you say you don't need to be an attorney to figure it out then you go into a diatribe about amateur attorneys?

I said early on that if I was to just look at the actual incident involving the shooting I would not have a problem saying it looks like a pretty clear cut case of self defense. Did I not? The problem is that it's not so clear cut when this singular event is kept in context with the entire event.

Now that you've come out and said you're an attorney I guess the next question would be in what area do you practice? Criminal defense?

You're real good at picking a bone with me about what I said but as of yet you have not offered anything to counter my very reasonable and rooted in law argument about possession and lawful use of a firearm and I admiited I have no idea how, if true, these little details effect the lawful use of deadly force with a firearm in a self defense situation.

Just answering with I'm a lawyer and I say so doesn't cut it. I'm also not interested in any more deflections as well. Impress me with staying on point and while doing so chain each piece of your argument together with some logic and a modicrum of common sense.
post #2331 of 6250
Quote:
Originally Posted by munchausen View Post

Shay Maria adds credibility to all of my statements. If only I could bring her into court with me.

That would beat the Chewbacca defense, for sure.
post #2332 of 6250
Quote:
Originally Posted by Crane's View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by munchausen View Post

Ok, so just to be clear; I'm carrying a gun even though my permit expired. Someone attacks me and I shoot them; I am now a murderer, right? That is what you are saying, is it not? Because that, my friend, is both insane and wrong.

Neither insane or wrong. You are basically saying it's OK to be actively involved in a felony weapons violation and you use the illegally possessed weapon to defend yourself and kill someone. That's insane and wrong. If you abided by the law then a firearm would not be an issue would it? I firmly believe in self defense but it must be done in compliance with all pertinent laws. Can't have a gun then learn a martial art or just pick up the nearest rock if need be. Better yet learn something about situational awareness and avoid the shitty situation altogether. I'm having a real hard time understanding where you are coming from because well, it just doesn't make any sense at all. Basically you're saying it's OK to be involved in a criminal activity concerning possesion of a firearm as long as you use it lawfully. Sorry guy, it doesn't work that way.

I really hope you're not going to tell me you're an attorney and I don't know what I'm talking about. LOL.

You are trying to blend things that don't mix in a legal sense. If someone is illegally carrying a firearm, that is a crime. If someone commits murder, that is a different and separate crime. Proof of the first does not equate to proof of the second. In other words, a clean shoot is a clean shoot, even if the weapon was illegally possessed. Think back to the Bernhard Goetz subway shooting case in New York--he was convicted of illegal firearms possession but acquitted of assault and attempted murder. There is no legal inconsistency in that verdict.

It is possible that in some cases, a defendant's act in illegally carrying a firearm would be relevant to his state of mind for purposes of murder or manslaughter. But it does not automatically negate a self defense claim.
post #2333 of 6250
the one thing zimmerman is clearly guilty of is being a pussy with a gun. biggrin.gif
post #2334 of 6250
Quote:
Originally Posted by Crane's View Post


You're real good at picking a bone with me about what I said but as of yet you have not offered anything to counter my very reasonable and rooted in law argument about possession and lawful use of a firearm and I admiited I have no idea how, if true, these little details effect the lawful use of deadly force with a firearm in a self defense situation.

I quoted the relevant law on the last page. I think it really says it all. What applicable law is your stance based on?
post #2335 of 6250
Quote:
Originally Posted by Piobaire View Post

As my lawyers always tell me, anything can happen once it goes to the jury. Can a jury still come back with a guilty verdict on second degree?

They definitely can, if in fact it gets to a jury. This is the point where I will admit I'm out of my depth, but I believe the immunity from prosecution portion of the law could see the case dismissed without a jury. Harvey or some other defense guy could probably answer that one better. That immunity would be a big issue on appeal too, I imagine.
post #2336 of 6250
The composition of the jury will have much to do with Z's ultimate fate.

Imagine a jury with Crane's and Munchausen on it. And of course the said jury would have a black person and a redneck on it too. Would make for interesting deliberations.
post #2337 of 6250
I doubt I would make it on the jury.
post #2338 of 6250
Thank you M. I didn't think it made a potentially legitimate act of self defense automatically null and void. I was thinking about the Goetz case and how it went but then there are other cases where it didn't work as well. It all goes back to the devil is in the details as you pointed out.

Because I teach the class that allows Missourians to carry concealed these cases are always of interest. We use them as examples of what can happen if you find yourself in a situation where you defend yourself with a firearm or other deadly weapon. Goetz ended up with a weapons charge sticking and then ended up with a civil liability case that cost him something like 40 million dollars. I'm sure when this case is finalized we will use it as an example as well. If nothing else hopefully it will cause people to really think about things and the intended and unintended consequences of the snakepit known as lethal force in a self defense situation. We tell people constantly it is better to avoid the situation altogether if possible. At the same time we train them to act immediately and decisevly if it all goes wrong.
post #2339 of 6250
Quote:
Originally Posted by rnoldh View Post

The composition of the jury will have much to do with Z's ultimate fate.
Imagine a jury with Crane's and Munchausen on it. And of course the said jury would have a black person and a redneck on it too. Would make for interesting deliberations.

I'm not sure I would make the jury cut as well.
post #2340 of 6250
Quote:
Originally Posted by munchausen View Post

I doubt I would make it on the jury.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Crane's View Post

I'm not sure I would make the jury cut as well.

I was just kidding of course.

But the composition of the jury ( if it gets that far ) will have a whole lot to do with Z's fate. Among the most important factors I think.

On that, can we get M and C to agree?
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