Judge Sets Bail at $150,000 for Shooter in Trayvon Martin Case

[Sayha or bust. 71]

I don't think Z will be standing his ground for a very long time.

Paybacks a ######.

[Sayha or bust. 71]

Yup. Especially after this new pic was released today.

http://maroonedinmar...-zimmerman.html

Scalp cuts bleed a lot , that proves very little , he probably bumped his head in the scuffle.

If he isn't allowed to be armed, what's he going to stand his ground with?

What was Trayvon armed with? Skittles.

[Usui Takumi 1,562]

Scalp cuts bleed a lot , that proves very little , he probably bumped his head in the scuffle.

What was Trayvon armed with? Skittles.

If you follow up my previous posts it will make more sense.

[Bad_Daddy 2,209]

Zimmerman will be safe if he moves up here to Alaska. He will be able to pack guns without a permit. That and I doubt anyone up here will bother him.

[Sayha or bust. 71]

Zimmerman will be safe if he moves up here to Alaska. He will be able to pack guns without a permit. That and I doubt anyone up here will bother him.

He could go to Vermont too. You guys can have him.

[Bad_Daddy 2,209]

He could go to Vermont too. You guys can have him.

Vermont has too many libs. I think he will fit in much better up here. That and we have more guns per capita than anywhere else.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

If he isn't allowed to be armed, what's he going to stand his ground with?

Not being allowed to be armed and not being armed are two different things, no? After all, Z admitted in court today that he did not know whether M was armed. Knowing that the person you're afraid might cause you harm or death is armed does not seem to matter when claiming stand your ground. While not knowing whether Z is armed, everyone does know that he killed before. Thus, one can reasonably be afraid for one's safety when encountering him. And being reasonably afraid gives you the right to kill down here in sunny FL. That's the essence of Z's defense.

[Usui Takumi 1,562]

Not being allowed to be armed and not being armed are two different things, no? After all, Z admitted in court today that he did not know whether M was armed. Knowing that the person you're afraid might cause you harm or death is armed does not seem to matter when claiming stand your ground. While not knowing whether Z is armed, everyone does know that he killed before. Thus, one can reasonably be afraid for one's safety when encountering him. And being reasonably afraid gives you the right to kill down here in sunny FL. That's the essence of Z's defense.

Uggg...let me spell it out as a summary of my posts regarding this.

1. Zimmerman has been shown to the public to be weak in a struggle.

2. Zimmerman is out on bail and cannot be armed - the public knows this.

Conclusion - Zimmerman is not a threat.

Edited April 21, 2012 by Sousuke

[Ban Hammer 12,829]

Not being allowed to be armed and not being armed are two different things, no? After all, Z admitted in court today that he did not know whether M was armed. Knowing that the person you're afraid might cause you harm or death is armed does not seem to matter when claiming stand your ground. While not knowing whether Z is armed, everyone does know that he killed before. Thus, one can reasonably be afraid for one's safety when encountering him. And being reasonably afraid gives you the right to kill down here in sunny FL. That's the essence of Z's defense.

exactly the point. otherwise, grandma could be beaten to death by a meth addict because he wasn't armed.

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

Isn't it innocent until guilty? They (the prosecution) need to prove he had no reasonable fear etc and they need to prove he caused the attack.

Not at all. Self-defense is an affirmative defense. The defendant has to show by a preponderance of the evidence (more likely than not) that the conditions requiring the use of deadly force were present at the time deadly force was used.

[Usui Takumi 1,562]

Not at all. Self-defense is an affirmative defense. The defendant has to show by a preponderance of the evidence (more likely than not) that the conditions requiring the use of deadly force were present at the time deadly force was used.

Ok makes sense, as long there is no evidence to the contrary it will generally hold up.

...just checked - he needs to present a reasonable case but needs not prove it beyond a reasonable doubt.

Edited April 21, 2012 by Sousuke

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

Ok makes sense, as long there is no evidence to the contrary it will generally hold up.

...just checked - he needs to present a reasonable case but needs not prove it beyond a reasonable doubt.

The standard is, "Would a reasonable person believe..."

In this case, would a reasonable person think that Zimmerman's struggles with Martin had reached a point where his life was threatened? Further, would a reasonable person think that Martin had become the aggressor, not that Martin was only using the force necessary to either defend himself, or escape Zimmerman?

Both those issues will not be determined by a jury, but rather by a judge before it goes to trial.

The homicide was admitted by Zimmerman. The means by which he killed Martin are known. The only questions in this case are, "Why did you kill Martin?" and "Can you prove it?" If Zimmerman loses the self-defense motion, he have to find another answer to the first question that the jury will believe.

Edited April 21, 2012 by ☼

[웃 910]

The standard is, "Would a reasonable person believe..."

In this case, would a reasonable person think that Zimmerman's struggles with Martin had reached a point where his life was threatened? Further, would a reasonable person think that Martin had become the aggressor, not that Martin was only using the force necessary to either defend himself, or escape Zimmerman?

Both those issues will not be determined by a jury, but rather by a judge before it goes to trial.

The homicide was admitted by Zimmerman. The means by which he killed Martin are known. The only questions in this case are, "Why did you kill Martin?" and "Can you prove it?" If Zimmerman loses the self-defense motion, he have to find another answer to the first questions that the jury will believe.

The standard is, "What events led up to you murdering a child"

The answer in this situation is: "I was a delusional neighborhood watch paranoid maniac with a gun....Calling the police at any given second for suspicious activity. My history is calling 911 a gazillion times in the last 3 years. I saw a child with a hood on walking in his own neighborhood with candy and I called the police (in other words a VERY bad reason). The police were in route, the professionals were minutes away. I was told not to exit my SUV for safety reasons. I disobeyed law which was seconds away and took the law into my own hands. I chased the young boy down and caught him....The young boy kicked my behind and I got scared and murdered him. No biggie. I am open to watch your neighborhood if you have a vacancy. I have good references."

Edited April 21, 2012 by ☠

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Isn't it innocent until guilty? They (the prosecution) need to prove he had no reasonable fear etc and they need to prove he caused the attack.

It isn't quite like that for a situation where a person admits shooting an unarmed person and claims self defense. Also, I don't think the prosecution is going to paint Zimmerman as a cold blooded killer, but rather a trigger happy, paranoid, cop-wannabe, who picked a fight and retaliated with a gun.

Edited April 21, 2012 by Mister Fancypants

[Sayha or bust. 71]

The standard is, "What events led up to you murdering a child"

The answer in this situation is: "I was a delusional neighborhood watch paranoid maniac with a gun....Calling the police at any given second for suspicious activity. My history is calling 911 a gazillion times in the last 3 years. I saw a child with a hood on walking in his own neighborhood with candy and I called the police (in other words a VERY bad reason). The police were in route, the professionals were minutes away. I was told not to exit my SUV for safety reasons. I disobeyed law which was seconds away and took the law into my own hands. I chased the young boy down and caught him....The young boy kicked my behind and I got scared and murdered him. No biggie. I am open to watch your neighborhood if you have a vacancy. I have good references."

The best analogy I've heard so far from a member of VJ. I agree totally!