johno wrote:Unless Good's account is discredited, or there is some other witness to testify that Z initially attacked Martin, the wheels have come off the Prosecution Bus.
My understanding is that who initiated the situation only really affects duty to retreat. But questions of whether someone does or does not have a duty to retreat don't come into play when they can't retreat because someone who's physically more capable is sitting on top of them.
I don't think the prosecution ever had wheels on its bus. The only reason they're in court is that they don't want to be the target of public outrage.
"The biggest problems that we’re facing right now have to do with George Bush trying to bring more and more power into the executive branch and not go through Congress at all."
If the media did not initially report this as a poor kid on his way to the store for some Skittles and putting up pics of him when he was a little kid and not the 6' er of traditional military age shot by some white vigilante and Obama did not open his cocksucker and send in the Feds, this would not have come to court.
When the story first broke, my lady came in the room all pissed off about it from the initial reports.
I remember saying " If that's the case, I hope the fry that fucker." but in about a day I said " I think we should wait to see what else comes out about this." because it started to look like a propaganda job quick.
I think Obama and his buddies initially thought they had a way to go after Stand your ground in the court of public opinion and go from there.
Not like he's not willing to stand over the bodies of children to push his non factual agenda about guns.
Let the riots happen, it will be an example that theire are still among us not yet ready for civilization players, like the LA riots did.
"God forbid we tell the savages to go fuck themselves." Batboy
Pinky wrote:
My understanding is that who initiated the situation only really affects duty to retreat. But questions of whether someone does or does not have a duty to retreat don't come into play when they can't retreat because someone who's physically more capable is sitting on top of them.
Usually, if Z starts a fight with M, then M gets the upper hand, it is illegal for Z to escalate to gunplay. Z would be on the hook for Murder.
Rightfully, IMO.
Pinky wrote:
My understanding is that who initiated the situation only really affects duty to retreat. But questions of whether someone does or does not have a duty to retreat don't come into play when they can't retreat because someone who's physically more capable is sitting on top of them.
Usually, if Z starts a fight with M, then M gets the upper hand, it is illegal for Z to escalate to gunplay. Z would be on the hook for Murder.
Rightfully, IMO.
If starting a fight means attacking or getting up with in personal space, yes. Talking and asking a question is not grounds to fuck someone up.
"God forbid we tell the savages to go fuck themselves." Batboy
Usually, if Z starts a fight with M, then M gets the upper hand, it is illegal for Z to escalate to gunplay. Z would be on the hook for Murder.
Rightfully, IMO.
If starting a fight means attacking or getting up with in personal space, yes. Talking and asking a question is not grounds to fuck someone up.
I agree.
Zimmerman had as much right to occupy sidewalk space as Martin did. He had the right to approach Martin in a peaceful, non-threatening way, and engage in conversation.
But I'd guess we'll never know about the initial conversation because only Zimmerman lived to tell the tale.
Seeing as the only marks on the boy are on his fist and the nice 9mm hole in his chest and Zimmerman looked like he smacked into a brick wall and bounced his skull off the pavement I'd say the outcome should have been accepted via the outcome of their Trial by Combat.
"God forbid we tell the savages to go fuck themselves." Batboy
Pinky wrote:
My understanding is that who initiated the situation only really affects duty to retreat. But questions of whether someone does or does not have a duty to retreat don't come into play when they can't retreat because someone who's physically more capable is sitting on top of them.
Usually, if Z starts a fight with M, then M gets the upper hand, it is illegal for Z to escalate to gunplay. Z would be on the hook for Murder.
Rightfully, IMO.
Not if Z tried to leave but couldn't. The law still wouldn't require him to submit to a fatal beating. It would simply require him to exhaust other options before using deadly force.
"The biggest problems that we’re facing right now have to do with George Bush trying to bring more and more power into the executive branch and not go through Congress at all."
Pinky wrote:
My understanding is that who initiated the situation only really affects duty to retreat. But questions of whether someone does or does not have a duty to retreat don't come into play when they can't retreat because someone who's physically more capable is sitting on top of them.
Usually, if Z starts a fight with M, then M gets the upper hand, it is illegal for Z to escalate to gunplay. Z would be on the hook for Murder.
Rightfully, IMO.
Not if Z tried to leave but couldn't. The law still wouldn't require him to submit to a fatal beating. It would simply require him to exhaust other options before using deadly force.
He did try screaming...
"Liberalism is arbitrarily selective in its choice of whose dignity to champion." Adrian Vermeule
johno wrote:
Usually, if Z starts a fight with M, then M gets the upper hand, it is illegal for Z to escalate to gunplay. Z would be on the hook for Murder.
Rightfully, IMO.
Not if Z tried to leave but couldn't. The law still wouldn't require him to submit to a fatal beating. It would simply require him to exhaust other options before using deadly force.
Agree. The person who initiated the fight has to "leave off," in some way. (Of course, Fla. law could vary.)
But this is not Zimmerman's argument - he told police that he was walking back to his car/truck when Martin confronted him, they exchanged words, then Martin punched him, knocking him to the ground.
I think we agree on this. My point, which I should have been more clear about, was that the prosecution's case seems impossible. Even if they show that Z started this, which they aren't doing so far, they also have to argue that this guy was on the receiving end of a potentially lethal ground & pound and (possibly screaming for help) had not exhausted options other than lethal force.
"The biggest problems that we’re facing right now have to do with George Bush trying to bring more and more power into the executive branch and not go through Congress at all."
During testimony Monday in the second-degree murder trial of George Zimmerman, prosecutors inadvertently displayed a document containing Zimmerman's social security and telephone numbers, among other personal information.
This information is obviously not public record (they should have been redacted on the document), and it seems that the numbers were displayed by accident.
Mediaite has video of the courtroom reaction after people realized that Zimmerman's personal information was on display, as well as a screenshot of CNN airing the police report containing Zimmerman's address, social security number, and phone number. Mediaite redacted the information in its screenshot, but CNN aired it with all the numbers visible.
The numbers likely aired on CNN by accident because the network was broadcasting live coverage of the trial. In addition to some of the testimony being aired live on television, several news outlets have set up live streams of the trial so people can watch online.
Once people realize what information is on display, you can hear multiple people in the courtroom saying "Get that down," and the voice of the prosecutor saying "How can I clear it?"
