this whole stand your ground law is bullsh!t, it lets people instigate incidents and use deadly force when the other side doesnt back down
The Trayvon Martin Case
- Thread starter Why-Fi
- Start date
- Status
this whole stand your ground law is bullsh!t, it lets people instigate incidents and use deadly force when the other side doesnt back down
Basically. They still saying it comes down to who attacked who first. That is real bogus.
Its almost like people can approach you and harass you, and if you hit them first or advance towards them they can blow your head off. No way the law supports that.
There is mountains and mountains of evidence that shows:
1)Trayvon was minding his own business,
2)Trayvon was not committing a crime,
3)Trayvon was not a danger to himself or others,
4)Trayvon had every right to be there.
Zimmerman's past history shows major character flaws & his arrogance and superiority complex makes this all the worst. You almost feel like Trayvon did not have chance. No one would have had a chance against those odds, cause it was a deadly mix.
Zimmerman even lied on the stand and said he thought Trayvon was his age, but on the 911 tapes he says Trayvon looks like he is in his late teens. No one gonna mistake Trayvon for being 28 years old.
Mic-Nificent
I didn't eat nobody
Don't know why this gets ignored by people. Zimmerman has been caught in multiple lies.
In the 911 calls he admitted he was following Trayvon, then in the statements he claimed he just got out of the car to read the street signs to see where he was.
One moment Zimmerman claims Trayvon jumped out of the bushes and attacked him, then the next moment he's saying they had a verbal exchange and Trayvon hit him while he was reaching for his "phone".
Person A murdered that man. The drugs are irrelevant (despite their role in causing the initial disagreement, the point of physical contact and conflict is where the legal issue lies) and at the point person A sits on person B and begins mortally stabbing him, is where it turns into intentional murder.
Now to segue to the Zimmerman case:
Despite the issues with Zimmerman's credibility, and the nondisputed facts of the situation leading up to the confrontation (Zimmerman did track, call in to report, and follow on foot despite an instruction not to) the case ultimately is gonna come down to the result of the initial physical confrontation, and to that point, Zimmerman still has a pretty good chance to get off.
With the burden of proof being on the State, all O'Mara really has to do is provide enough direct evidence to contradict and muck up the Prosecution's case and introduce enough doubt to register as "reasonable" in the eyes of some of the jurors, some of which may already identify more with Zimmeran in terms of how they would have reacted upon seeing Trayvon (assumption of guilt, sterotyping, etc).
After watching that Casey Anthony trial, the possibility of Zimmerman getting off doesn't surprise me one bit.
Mic-Nificent
I didn't eat nobody
Actually if Zimmerman is going to claim self defense then the burden of proof is on his legal team. Self Defense is an affirmative defense, so Zimmerman has to prove Trayvon started the fight and that Zimmerman was in fear of his life (thus justifying his use of deadly force). Zimmerman's constantly getting caught in lies hurts his claim of self defense.
Not if he is planning to stick with the "Stand Your Ground" defense...
Mic-Nificent
I didn't eat nobody
That's not how stand your ground works....
If he goes for the stand your ground defense they'll actually have a small trial BEFORE the actual trial to see if Stand your ground is applicable in this situation. If the Judge finds it's applicable then Zimmerman walks and can't even be taken to civil court. If the judge strikes down the stand your ground claim they got to trail where Zimmerman can then use the standard self defense claim, which is an affirmative defense.
I'm aware of the hearing with the Judge he'll have if he goes for SYG, and I'm operating on the assumption that the judge doesn't grant immunity and proceeds to jury trial. Although self-defense is an affirmative defense, that doesn't mean that O'Mara will have to jump over the moon to reach his burden. At the point of an actual trial, Zimmerman's burden of proof isn't high at all...it's actually quite low. He just has to show enough evidence for a reasonable juror to believe that he acted in self-defense. That's all.
At that point, the burden shifts to the state to prove that Zimmerman didn't act in self-defense. With his medical injuries, acknowledgement of a fight (both by Zimmerman and other witnesses in the complex), and initial assessment of the Sanford police to not charge Zimmerman, his burden pales in comparison to what Corey and her prosecution team will have to prove.
At that point, the burden shifts to the state to prove that Zimmerman didn't act in self-defense. With his medical injuries, acknowledgement of a fight (both by Zimmerman and other witnesses in the complex), and initial assessment of the Sanford police to not charge Zimmerman, his burden pales in comparison to what Corey and her prosecution team will have to prove.
That burden will not be easy if the jury is reasonable, especially knowing that he was armed and initiated the confrontation. You sound like you're cheerleading for him to get away with murder.
yesiambowling
Pro
You are aware this law could have saved his life, right? If he had managed to beat Zimmerman to death and the police arrested him, he could simply tell the truth; that he was "standing his ground" (which he absolutely was, since that dude followed HIM with a weapon) and he would have been set free (no way those officers would have let him be free from the get-go unfortunately).Dumbasses are shooting themselves in the foot with this argument that SYG killed Martin.
Mic-Nificent
I didn't eat nobody
Hell even the police didn't buy his bullshyt story. The only reason he wasn't arrested was because the Sanford DA refused to press charges. I still think Zimmerman is connected and it has something to do with his pops being a judge. Dude racked up some serious charges and got away with it EVERY time.
How can Zimmerman's defense team argue that was Zimmerman's "ground"? Especially considering he is the one who approached Trayvon. All he had to do was leave Trayvon alone, it crazy that you can start something and deadly force is still an option.
Being armed isn't directly connected to who initiated the confrontation. It'd be one thing if Zimmerman confronted Trayvon with his gun drawn. However, the gun came into play after the physical confrontation happened. A "reasonable" juror would want to know who started the physical struggle, and under what circumstances the gun became involved while under Zimmerman's control. So if Zimmerman's story is that he didn't throw the first punch, and after the fight started getting out of control he legitimately feared great bodily harm and that his life was in danger, then the sustained injuries, the inconsistency of the witness' statements of residents in the complex regarding the fight, and the fact that other than Det. Serino's initial report, the Sanford police did not charge him and bought his story of self defense provide a fair amount of leeway as supporting evidence of that claim of self defense.
To your second point though, while I personally feel that Trayvon was profiled, followed, harassed, and murdered in cold blood, that has absolutely nothing to do with the possible potential for Zimmerman to get off, so while it would be easy to merely speak angrily about how much I want Zimmerman to get what he deserves, and echo all of the news that trickles in about how much of a liar and manipulator he is, and emphasize all of the details about the case that support why it's a slam dunk and why we should just skip to the sentencing phase and pencil in the guilty verdict by default because it's a no-brainer...the fact that he could get off means I'd rather speak on the case from an unemotional and unbiased perspective, and look at potential arguments and defenses that could be used once the trial starts.
The random opinions of people on a message board about the Trayvon Martin case ultimately are all conjecture anyway, so if me speaking about possible legal approaches that could be used by the accused is "cheerleading"...then rah, rah, rah, breh...
Dumbasses are shooting themselves in the foot with this argument that SYG killed Martin.
syg did kill him, that law gives losers like zimmerman the empowerment that they can instigate any incident get away with it because their strapped
theres no way he follows him or approaches him without that strap and excuse of standing your ground
It's funny seeing people like say that you personally feel that Zimmerman is guilty of murder, then turn right around and break your back trying to pre emptively justify him getting off. I didn't quote you to debate whether Zimmerman is guilty or not, I quoted you to say that it would take a lot for a reasonable person to be convinced that Zimmerman acted in self defense given what we already know about the case. You say that you personally feel that Zimmerman is guilty and I'm simply saying that any reasonable person would come to that same conclusion based on what we know. You wrote this essay length response like your part of Zimmerman's defense team.Being armed isn't directly connected to who initiated the confrontation. It'd be one thing if Zimmerman confronted Trayvon with his gun drawn. However, the gun came into play after the physical confrontation happened. A "reasonable" juror would want to know who started the physical struggle, and under what circumstances the gun became involved while under Zimmerman's control. So if Zimmerman's story is that he didn't throw the first punch, and after the fight started getting out of control he legitimately feared great bodily harm and that his life was in danger, then the sustained injuries, the inconsistency of the witness' statements of residents in the complex regarding the fight, and the fact that other than Det. Serino's initial report, the Sanford police did not charge him and bought his story of self defense provide a fair amount of leeway as supporting evidence of that claim of self defense.
To your second point though, while I personally feel that Trayvon was profiled, followed, harassed, and murdered in cold blood, that has absolutely nothing to do with the possible potential for Zimmerman to get off, so while it would be easy to merely speak angrily about how much I want Zimmerman to get what he deserves, and echo all of the news that trickles in about how much of a liar and manipulator he is, and emphasize all of the details about the case that support why it's a slam dunk and why we should just skip to the sentencing phase and pencil in the guilty verdict by default because it's a no-brainer...the fact that he could get off means I'd rather speak on the case from an unemotional and unbiased perspective, and look at potential arguments and defenses that could be used once the trial starts.
The random opinions of people on a message board about the Trayvon Martin case ultimately are all conjecture anyway, so if me speaking about possible legal approaches that could be used by the accused is "cheerleading"...then rah, rah, rah, breh...
- Status