George Zimmerman says he lives in constant fear; has PTSD

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by maxpower

...unless you live in Florida.

---

...or in Texas (especially if you're texting in a movie theater before the main feature starts). Mother Fucking Gun Nuts!

You can't pick a fight with someone and then claim self defense...there's no order in that, just chaos.

Did he ever get his money from his ebay auction?

http://www.ebay.com/itm/111239922810...84.m1423.l2649

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by nysprod

Lookit, somebody enters your house in the dead of night to rob you, or you're walking down a street and someone pulls a weapon on you, you got every right to protect yourself and your property with deadly force...but you initiate contact with someone who's minding their own business, who you think may have done something, and especially after you've been told by a police dispatcher not to approach but ignore them and end up killing that person...then you're the aggressor, it's your fault, you go to jail.

---

Except that's an overly broad definition of initial aggressor. Look, I don't think he used great judgement in following that kid, and he is going to have to learn to deal with being a social outcast, but most people that comment on the legal grounds of the case don't understand the legalities behind a justification defense.

And to the people that talk about SYG, this wasn't a circumstance where one would need to apply that law. SYG removes the common law duty to retreat, but that duty, at least in most states, only applies once you're at the point that deadly force would need to be used, and even then it generally only applies if you can withdraw in complete safety. NYS still has "duty to retreat," but we'd of likely seen the same verdict if that incident had happened here.

Whether or not it is a good legal policy to remove the duty to retreat is of course open to debate, but people should not confuse that debate with the circumstances of the Zimmerman case. It's apples and oranges.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by NYBURBS

Except that's an overly broad definition of initial aggressor. Look, I don't think he used great judgement in following that kid, and he is going to have to learn to deal with being a social outcast, but most people that comment on the legal grounds of the case don't understand the legalities behind a justification defense.

And to the people that talk about SYG, this wasn't a circumstance where one would need to apply that law. SYG removes the common law duty to retreat, but that duty, at least in most states, only applies once you're at the point that deadly force would need to be used, and even then it generally only applies if you can withdraw in complete safety. NYS still has "duty to retreat," but we'd of likely seen the same verdict if that incident had happened here.

Whether or not it is a good legal policy to remove the duty to retreat is of course open to debate, but people should not confuse that debate with the circumstances of the Zimmerman case. It's apples and oranges.

---

More legal/political gobblygook and another aurgument for why you first kill all the lawyers and then the politicians.

The Judge did take the time to instruct the jury specifically on the stand your ground law.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by nysprod

More legal/political gobblygook and another aurgument for why you first kill all the lawyers and then the politicians.

---

OK, so let's take a slightly different scenario:

You're out on the street one night, and you see some guy with a flashlight walking up the street looking into cars. You know there have been car break-ins, but you're not sure what his deal is. You then see him next to your car, so you go over and ask him what he's doing. He in turn takes issue with you "confronting" him about his activities, and he strikes at you.

Are you the aggressor in that situation? The guy hadn't broken into anyone's car yet, but you had only asked him what he was doing, and you have an interest in the well being of your property.

Maybe you feel someone should just call the police, and maybe that's the safer bet, but asking someone a question is not illegal nor is it inherently aggressive. All of that legally "gobblygook" developed for a reason over the ages, and without it you're left to being ruled only by the passions of the mob, whatever they might be at that moment.

If you ask someone who you think may be breaking into cars, "What are you doing?" you're certainly aware the question may lead to a confrontation. To the degree the interrogator believes there's crime afoot, is the degree to which he's looking for trouble when he asks his question.

First call the cops. Inform them of the situation. If he's looking into your car, so what? If he's actually braking into your car, it obvious what he doing...no questions are necessary, no interaction is necessary... just inform the cops a brake in is in progress. Is there something valuable in the car? Drugs? A gun in the glove compartment? A couple of grand in U.S. dollars? Probably not. Wait for the cops.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by NYBURBS

OK, so let's take a slightly different scenario:

You're out on the street one night, and you see some guy with a flashlight walking up the street looking into cars. You know there have been car break-ins, but you're not sure what his deal is. You then see him next to your car, so you go over and ask him what he's doing. He in turn takes issue with you "confronting" him about his activities, and he strikes at you.

Are you the aggressor in that situation? The guy hadn't broken into anyone's car yet, but you had only asked him what he was doing, and you have an interest in the well being of your property.

Maybe you feel someone should just call the police, and maybe that's the safer bet, but asking someone a question is not illegal nor is it inherently aggressive. All of that legally "gobblygook" developed for a reason over the ages, and without it you're left to being ruled only by the passions of the mob, whatever they might be at that moment.

---

But that isn't what happened here...that boy was walking along minding his own business...and the mob has taken over control, it's just that this time they got the lawyers and politicians to make it legal.

The nazis did the same thing, at least in the early years...devised a whole bunch of laws which allowed them to appropriate Jewish property "legally."

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by NYBURBS

Except that's an overly broad definition of initial aggressor. Look, I don't think he used great judgement in following that kid, and he is going to have to learn to deal with being a social outcast, but most people that comment on the legal grounds of the case don't understand the legalities behind a justification defense.

And to the people that talk about SYG, this wasn't a circumstance where one would need to apply that law. SYG removes the common law duty to retreat, but that duty, at least in most states, only applies once you're at the point that deadly force would need to be used, and even then it generally only applies if you can withdraw in complete safety. NYS still has "duty to retreat," but we'd of likely seen the same verdict if that incident had happened here.

Whether or not it is a good legal policy to remove the duty to retreat is of course open to debate, but people should not confuse that debate with the circumstances of the Zimmerman case. It's apples and oranges.

---

A jury could have concluded that Zimmerman could have retreated in safety particularly since Martin was unarmed. Even in a state where there is a duty to retreat you do not have to do so if it would put you in more danger. This usually involves a situation where someone can shoot you in the back or stab you in the back. The jury also would have had the opportunity to decide on such questions of fact as whether Zimmerman was pinned down, and whether he had an opportunity to retreat.

Or think of this another way. Let's say the posture of the case were on appeal and the events took place in a duty to retreat state but the Judge had instructed the jury there was no duty to retreat. That would be error. Do you think it would be harmless error, such that it could not have made a difference to a rational trier of fact? I highly doubt it. If it were a duty to retreat state and the Judge instructed the jury that there was no duty to retreat, the verdict would probably be reversed on appeal. That's because there is a possibility that it would matter.