Zimmerman verdict - Page 25 - PeachParts Mercedes-Benz Forum

rs899 · #**361** 07-16-2013, 01:30 PM

"A person is justified in using deadly force if he reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself.

In deciding whether George Zimmerman was justified in the use of deadly force, you must judge him by the circumstances by which he was surrounded at the time the force was used. The danger facing George Zimmerman need not have been actual; however, to justify the use of deadly force, the appearance of danger must have been so real that a reasonably cautious and prudent person under the same circumstances would have believed that the danger could be avoided only through the use of that force. Based upon appearances, George Zimmerman must have actually believed that the danger was real.

If George Zimmerman was not engaged in an unlawful activity and was attacked in any place where he had a right to be, he had no duty to retreat and had the right to stand his ground and meet force with force, including deadly force if he reasonably believed that it was necessary to do so to prevent death or great bodily harm to himself or another or to prevent the commission of a forcible felony."

The way I read this instruction there's no need to look at who confronted who or who sucker punched who. The act is distilled down to the few seconds when they were struggling on the ground, not how they got there.

elchivito · #**362** 07-16-2013, 01:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dudesky

'Fearing for ones life' works in a self defense case too, which is all this was.

Did you read the jury instructions posted above your post? What part of the words "had the right to stand his ground" are you having trouble with?

t walgamuth · #**363** 07-16-2013, 01:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Brian Carlton

Opinions are fine, however can you please get to an understanding of FL law before providing same?

I do not believe your opinion can stand the test of FL law. However, I'm interested to see if you can reconcile your opinion with that law.

I am not interested in Florida law here. I am interested in Florida justice. An all white jury seems questionable in this day and age.

t walgamuth · #**364** 07-16-2013, 01:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Txjake

in street fighting, it is often the one who strikes the first blow that wins. usually neither side is in fighting shape particularly and is not really schooled to fight (generalization). Street fights seldom last very long before one side or the other is injured, runs away or is sometimes killed.

BTW, you wrote Mexican & beans in the same sentence: may we assume that you are a racist?

Is it an inacurate stereotype? Actually I used it figuratively and then noticed it was a cheap pun.

P.C. · #**365** 07-16-2013, 01:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by t walgamuth

We truly don't know the condition of either of them, do we? I tend to focus on weight as a former wrestler.

In wrestling and boxing everybody is in their own weight class and the classes jump. IE I wrestled 140 and the class included people weighing no more than 140. The next class up was 145.

Wrestling one class up was not too bad but I once wrestled two classes up and got a dislocated floating rib from the larger, stronger opponent.

From my days of watching professional boxing I can also tell you that the stronger looking men do not always win. Often supremely muscular black fighters were worn down by the pudgy looking Mexican boxer who didn't look as strong but never seemed to run out of beans...(energy).

There was expert testimony at the trial about the relative physical condition of both individuals at the time of the murder.

Dudesky · #**366** 07-16-2013, 01:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by elchivito

Did you read the jury instructions posted above your post? What part of the words "had the right to stand his ground" are you having trouble with?

He may have had the right under self defense law to stand his ground, but as I said before, this was never a stand your ground case. Under Stand Your Ground law this would be immune from prosecution if he met the statuatory requirements and would have forgone a jury trial altogether. Just like the local Police did at the start.

davidmash · #**367** 07-16-2013, 01:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dudesky

He may have had the right under self defense law to stand his ground, but as I said before, this was never a stand your ground case. Under Stand Your Ground law this would be immune from prosecution if he met the statuatory requirements and would have forgone a jury trial altogether. Just like the local Police did at the start.

Then why did the judge quote the statute as a justification for self defense?

Air&Road · #**368** 07-16-2013, 02:13 PM

It is absolutely amazing how many people are willing to allow themselves to give in to political correctness and emotion as opposed to accepting the rule of law.

I guess it makes sense though, if the law doesn't match up with your personal political opinion, the law must be wrong. After losing in a fair trial, it must be time to change the rules and get a second chance. Of course that is double jeopardy, but for a liberal, their political opinion trumps everything.

P.C. · #**369** 07-16-2013, 02:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Air&Road

It is absolutely amazing how many people are willing to allow themselves to give in to political correctness and emotion as opposed to accepting the rule of law.

I guess it makes sense though, if the law doesn't match up with your personal political opinion, the law must be wrong. After losing in a fair trial, it must be time to change the rules and get a second chance. Of course that is double jeopardy, but for a liberal, their political opinion trumps everything.

Would you like to compare the statement above with your attitude about laws that permit abortion?

cmbdiesel · #**370** 07-16-2013, 02:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Txjake

possibly, are you claiming that he did not? regardless, his actions were not extralegal....

his actions in the version of the story he told....

I cannot go against the verdict, as there was just no credible evidence either way, but I sure would hate to have to accept only one side of the story when it involves a killing.

We will never know which version of events is actually the truth, but it sure is humorous to watch so many here that are 100% convinced of their interpretation.

Air&Road · #**371** 07-16-2013, 02:25 PM

So what about the laws that permit abortion? Have I disagreed with a court verdict that upheld the legality of murdering an unborn child? I would not have liked to see the unborn child MURDERED, but I accept the verdict as Just, under current law. Something the liberals are having a tough time doing in the Z case.

Brian Carlton · #**372** 07-16-2013, 02:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by t walgamuth

I am not interested in Florida law here.

Well OK then.

Can you define a new set of TW laws so we can all be on the same page?

cmbdiesel · #**373** 07-16-2013, 02:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Txjake

you guys kill me. you bought into the false racist hype hook, line & sinker....this was a media event, spooled up to a level that even the POTUS was affected. Masterful in it's execution, it made untold millions for the media. Too bad for them that their house of cards was built in a windstorm. I imagine the perpetrator of this just about crapped when the guy with a jewish sounding named turned out to be a hispanic with a backgound of working with and living in a minority community......

STOP BEING LED AROUND BY THE MEDIA.....THEY ARE PLAYING YOU AND LAUGHING ALL THE WAY TO THE BANK, AT THE EXPENSE OF OUR COUNTRY.

I heard that NBC paid for the skittles....

davidmash · #**374** 07-16-2013, 02:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by P.C.

Would you like to compare the statement above with your attitude about laws that permit abortion?

Cue Fred Astaire for the next song and dance.

Air&Road · #**375** 07-16-2013, 02:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cmbdiesel

his actions in the version of the story he told....

I cannot go against the verdict, as there was just no credible evidence either way, but I sure would hate to have to accept only one side of the story when it involves a killing.

We will never know which version of events is actually the truth, but it sure is humorous to watch so many here that are 100% convinced of their interpretation.

Did you actually WATCH the trial or at least get a report on the testimonies? No credible evidence either way? Do you only log into this forum via the internet, but actually live on a different planet?

If you did actually hear the evidence presented, along with the criteria on which the jury was supposed to make their decision and STILL cannot see his not being found guilty, then you are either blinded by emotion or blinded by political correctness. Either way, it is a sad day.