Zimmerman trial: Potential jurors polled on guns, crime

[We Keep Receipts 9,238]

none of that shows GZ being the aggressor in the fight. try again

What shows that TM was the aggresor? We see pics of GZ with the nose and head wound, but can we see TM? Oh, that's right, he's dead. Maybe GZ pushed him, you don't know. We do know that GZ was following him, in a car and then on foot. We know that GZ thought of TM as a criminal, even though no crime was committed by TM at the time, we know that GZ could have confronted him much earlier, but chose not to. He said TM was circling around his car, yet he didn't stop to identify himself. We know he got out of his car and kept following him.

What I find so funny is, you used a rape analogy earlier. If TM was a woman and a man started following her just like this, do you think she would feel threatned? I don't know if TM attacked GZ or if GZ caught up to him and they had an altercation, but what I do know is there was no reason to get out of the car. No one was in danger, no crime was being committed, nothing.

[SMOKE 1,426]

What I find so funny is, you used a rape analogy earlier. If TM was a woman and a man started following her just like this, do you think she would feel threatned? I don't know if TM attacked GZ or if GZ caught up to him and they had an altercation, but what I do know is there was no reason to get out of the car. No one was in danger, no crime was being committed, nothing.

there is nothing funny about rape or this case marvin. you seem to not like your & bill's 'he asked for it' claims as much as you did when you made them.

[We Keep Receipts 9,238]

there is nothing funny about rape or this case marvin. you seem to not like your & bill's 'he asked for it' claims as much as you did when you made them.

I didn't say there was, what I said it's funny you used that as an analogy. When I did it a few weeks ago, folks said the same rules apply. That a woman would have no reason to feel threatned if a strange guy started following her for no reason. Nor did I say he asked for it, I said there was no reason for him to get out of the car. He is not a cop, just an armed citizen that took the law into his own hands when no law was broken.

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

Actually, your knowledge of Florida law fails. Do you need me to post one of your previous assertions that GZ had a duty to retreat?

I posted an article that showed you have no duty to retreat in Florida.

No, you posted an opinion piece that selectively excerpted a news article. You also overlooked the fact the dead criminal was armed and used a weapon to attack his killer. It was caught on videotape, and that the state attorney is appealing the judge's decision.

The judge said when Roteta swung a 4- to 6-pound bag of stolen car radios at Garcia just before the stabbing, it amounted to a lethal threat.

http://www.tampabay.com/stand-your-ground-law/cases/case_133

Edited June 21, 2013 by The Patriot

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

No - in Florida you can kill him, An SYG case that occured after GZ and TM.

Actually, the killing of Roteta occured prior to the killing of Martin. Worthy of noting that Roteta was actually in the middle of committing a crime while Martin was clearly not. And being cleared in the killing of Roteta under SYG did not do Garcia much good. He was himself killed - by a stray bullet no less - shortly thereafter and is now the same 6 feet under as the man he killed earlier. Maybe that stray bullet came from another that was just standing his ground. Karma can be a real b!tch.

[DaveE 178]

What the Patriot said on May 15th.

"Not in this case. The Zimmerman admitted to killing Martin. There is no doubt, reasonable, or otherwise. In this case, Zimmerman has to show his life was in danger, or a reasonable person would believe his life was in danger, AND that he only used the necessary force to protect his life, AND he had no opportunity to withdraw. There is no presumption of innocence for Zimmerman. He fails on all three counts."

Under Florida law how many of your statements I underlined are true? I posted the article to show that under Florida law you have no obligation to retreat, and in fact the defendant chased the deceased down and killed him. There is no appeal, it was dropped as the defendant was killed several months later.

1. You don't have to show your life is in danger, only that you fear great bodily harm.

2. There is no minimum necessary force restriction in Florida, if you fear great bodily harm you can use lethal force.

3. You have no obligation to withdraw.

Title 46 - chapter 776.013 (3) Florida statutes

(3) A person who is not engaged in an unlawful activity and who is attacked in any other place where he or she has a right to be has no duty to retreat and has the right to stand his or her ground and meet force with force, including deadly force if he or she reasonably believes it is necessary to do so to prevent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the commission of a forcible felony.

http://www.leg.state.fl.us/Statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&Search_String=&URL=0700-0799/0776/Sections/0776.013.html

As an aside, one of the chief criticisms of the Florida SYG is exactly what you posted. Senator Chris Smith of the Florida Stand your Ground task force explained it concerning 776.013(3)

This provision is a significant departure from Florida common law which required a person to
use every reasonable means available to retreat before using deadly force, except when the
person was in his or her home or place of work. By amending this section, the legislature
eliminated the common law duty to retreat before using deadly force in all places so long as the
person meets the requirements of the statute:
A person may use deadly force against another so long as he or she is
somewhere he or she has a legal right to be (e.g., public streets, shopping centers)
and he or she has a “reasonable belief” that the use of deadly force
is necessary to prevent serious bodily injury or death. The statute is
silent as to whether the use of deadly force is permitted under these
circumstances if an attacker is unarmed, but some have inferred this to
be the case. Florida’s Fourth District Court of Appeal recently interpreted
this provision as placing “no duty on the person to avoid or
retreat from danger, so long as that person is not engaged in an unlawful
activity and is located in a place where he or she has a right to be.”
Thus, the law allows people to use deadly force so long as they feel threatened with death or
great bodily harm, even if a person has other means of protecting his or her safety, such as
calling the police or retreating from the situation if it is possible to do so safely.http://senatorchrissmith.com/standyourground/finalreport.pdf

The only real questions are going to be who was the attacker, and if GZ can convince the jury (or judge if SYG is invoked) that he was in fear of great bodily harm.

Edited June 21, 2013 by DaveE

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

SYG did not do Garcia much good. He was himself killed - by a stray bullet no less - shortly thereafter and is now the same 6 feet under as the man he killed earlier. Maybe that stray bullet came from another that was just standing his ground. Karma can be a real b!tch.

That might explain why nothing further was heard about the state attorney's appeal in this case.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

Actually, your knowledge of Florida law fails. Do you need me to post one of your previous assertions that GZ had a duty to retreat?

I posted an article that showed you have no duty to retreat in Florida.

Yes but Garcia was granted the SYG immunity in no small part becasue the judge ruled that Garcia was well within his rights to chase down Roteta to try and get his property back. Without that, it is doubtful that that he would have gotten off the hook. Now remind me what was Zimmermann trying to get back when he chased Martin down?

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

The only real questions are going to be who was the attacker, and if GZ can convince the jury (or judge if SYG is invoked) that he was in fear of great bodily harm.

You avoided the "reasonable person" standard. Would a reasonable person think he was in danger of great bodily harm, or even death, given how superficial Zimmerman's wounds were? A bloody nose and a couple small abrasions on the back of the head are hardly life threatening.

If Zimmerman is shown to be the aggressor, that he initiated contact, he cannot claim self defense unless he made a reasonable attempt to withdraw, and that attempt was thwarted. That is also in the Florida law, and is not covered by stand your ground.

Edited June 21, 2013 by The Patriot

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

You avoided the "reasonable person" standard. Would a reasonable person think he was in danger of great bodily harm, or even death, given how superficial Zimmerman's wounds were? A bloody nose and a couple small abrasions on the back of the head are hardly life threatening.

If Zimmerman is shown to be the aggressor, that he initiated contact, he cannot claim self defense unless he made a reasonable attempt to withdraw, and that attempt was thwarted. That is also in the Florida law, and is not covered by stand your ground.

Exactly.

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

Another thing that bothers me, and I am waiting for the explanation. Zimmerman constantly claims he could not see clearly, because blood kept getting in his eyes, yet in the photos of Zimmermans injuries, we see blood flows downward, due to gravity, no blood anywhere near his eyes, or on the top of his head, for that matter. I wonder just whose blood it was that splattered all over his face.

[decocker 7,198]

do you feel the same way about a woman dressing sexy getting drunk at a party & getting raped? i sure hope not.

do you believe it is a man's instinctive nature to rape? i don't.

[SMOKE 1,426]

do you believe it is a man's instinctive nature to rape? i don't.

no. i don't believe its his instinctive nature to attack & beat a weaker man either. how about you?

[decocker 7,198]

no. i don't believe its his instinctive nature to attack & beat a weaker man either. how about you?

nope. and tm didn't attack and beat a weaker man. he didn't scope him out, track him down and decide to lay the smack down on him.

tm was being followed. he didn't know by who. instinct in a situation such as trayvon's dictates self defense.

the whole getting mauled by a bear comparison was made to compare the arrogance and ignorance on gz's part. gz was the one who reported a kid who was not involved in any criminal activity. gz was the one who decided to make sure tm didn't get away. gz was the one who provoked his suspect's retaliatory behaivior.

Edited June 21, 2013 by val erie

[SMOKE 1,426]

nope. and tm didn't attack and beat a weaker man. he didn't scope him out, track him down and decide to lay the smack down on him.

tm was being followed. he didn't know by who. instinct in a situation such as trayvon's dictates self defense.

the whole getting mauled by a bear comparison was made to compare the arrogance and ignorance on gz's part. gz was the one who reported a kid who was not involved in any criminal activity. gz was the one who decided to make sure tm didn't get away. gz was the one who provoked his suspect's retaliatory behaivior.

you still don't seem to understand assaulting someone is against the law. no matter what you say about saint skittles, he assaulted & beat zimmerman. justifiable or not its against the law. defending yourself from an assault is not.