Lessons Learned From Mr. Zimmerman. - Page 7
Page 7 of 17 FirstFirst ... 56789 ... LastLast
Results 61 to 70 of 165

Thread: Lessons Learned From Mr. Zimmerman.

  1. #61
    Quote Originally Posted by XD40scinNC View Post
    Uhhh just applying a rare commodity, common sense.

    You and I do not have the right to pursue someone and use our weapon to stop or detain them, only to use it only for defense.

    It is the job/duty of LEO's to go looking for bad guys, that's why we have a sheriff's department, a city police dept, state police, etc.. That is why they have the authority of arrest. They are the ones to pursue the bg, stop his vehicle, detain them on the street, or enter their home to take them to jail, they are on the offense, and carry a firearm as part of those duties. They carry because they are on the offense against the bg, I carry to be on the defense because there are bg's.
    The police have no duty to persue another or protect you. The weapon they carry is for their self defence. LEO's are private citizens authorized by our elected to investigate and make or not make arrests afterwards.
    The Only Easy Day Was Yesterday

  2.   
  3. #62
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    State of Confusion
    Posts
    7,733
    Quote Originally Posted by apvbguy View Post
    of course SYG is part of this case.
    if there was a pre-trial hearing what you say is correct but zimmerman and his lawyers chose to forego the pretrial hearing and go right to trial. why? because he would have had to prove his case in the SYG hearing and different rules of evidence would apply and the hearing in the politically charged atmosphere probably would not have had a favorable outcome.
    In layman's theory, yes it applies. But under the law there is a trial/case procedure law that governs the rules from arrest to lethal injection.

    The stand-alone SYG defense is not being used. GZ is using self-defense as an "affirmative defense." SYG, should one file a motion for the hearing, must be addressed at a pre-trial hearing to determine whether or not the charges apply in light of the situation. The purpose of the hearing is to determine if the statute applies. The only outcomes of a SYG hearing are either the charges are dropped or the case proceeds because SYG was not available as a defense. According to an interview with Mark Meara he determined that in order to request the hearing he would need to tip his hand on his case of self-defense and did not want to do that. Besides, everyone knows this thing was going to trial for all the wrong reasons. But SYG cannot be raised on it's face once the trial commences. There is a difference between affirmative defense and SYG. An affirmative defense can incorporate elements of SYG provisions through FL Statute 776 and this is available to GZ should he desire. Even those who waive the SYG hearing, or have a hearing that finds SYG did not apply are still entitled to raise an affirmative defense of self-defense. It's confusing as all hell and the primary discussion in our FL CCW class. We teach FL statutes 790 and 776 in that class using an attorney admitted to the FL bar. Even he gets stumped by the commonalities.
    GOD, GUNS and GUITARS

  4. #63
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Republic of Dead Cell Holler, Occupied Territories of AL, former USA
    Posts
    7,422
    Quote Originally Posted by apvbguy View Post
    in fla the castle doctrine extends to wherever it is that you are. this isn't worth a fight, but you do not know as much about the law here as you think you may
    I'm not "fighting" with you, but the fact is, I am the only one to post the whole chapter so you could point out what I don't know, and you refused in favor of ambiguous, unsubstantiated claims that I still don't know what I'm talking about. Cite the code. That's a fair request when you're claiming that I don't understand the code. Or, alternatively, read BC1's post and you'll understand what I was saying. He's got it right, and in my opinion, you don't.

    Blues
    No one has ever heard me say that I "hate" cops, because I don't. This is why I will never trust one again though: You just never know...

  5. #64
    Quote Originally Posted by BluesStringer View Post
    I'm not "fighting" with you, but the fact is, I am the only one to post the whole chapter so you could point out what I don't know, and you refused in favor of ambiguous, unsubstantiated claims that I still don't know what I'm talking about. Cite the code. That's a fair request when you're claiming that I don't understand the code. Or, alternatively, read BC1's post and you'll understand what I was saying. He's got it right, and in my opinion, you don't.

    Blues
    I'm not playing that game, I live in FLA, I carry in FLA, I know the laws in FLA. if you think my interpretation of the law is wrong it is on you to prove me wrong.

  6. #65
    Quote Originally Posted by BC1 View Post
    We teach FL statutes 790 and 776 in that class using an attorney admitted to the FL bar. Even he gets stumped by the commonalities.
    then he sucks at what he is doing, as for zimmerman it was tactical to go to trial passing up the SYG hearing. I don't feel like explaining the thinking behind this, there is another thread where I touch upon their possible thinking. look for it

  7. #66
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    Southwest Ohio
    Posts
    3,348
    Quote Originally Posted by Bigcarlover View Post
    He wasn't "lost in his own neighborhood" he was on the sidewalk in between buildings where there were no numbers to identify. Why can't people get this straight?
    They don't want to let facts get in the way of their opinions.
    Posterity: you will never know how much it has cost my generation to preserve your freedom. I hope you will make good use of it.--- John Quincy Adams
    Condensed Guide To Ohio Concealed Carry Laws

  8. #67
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    State of Confusion
    Posts
    7,733
    Quote Originally Posted by apvbguy View Post
    then he sucks at what he is doing, as for zimmerman it was tactical to go to trial passing up the SYG hearing. I don't feel like explaining the thinking behind this, there is another thread where I touch upon their possible thinking. look for it
    You need to contact Mark Meara an tell him he's doing it wrong. You need to call our guy and tell him he also doesn't know anything about FL law, despite passing the bar. Because, as you say, you live in FL.

    This thing was never ending with a SYG hearing. Know how they say never say never? I'm saying never. His tactic was very smart an the proof is he's winning this case.
    GOD, GUNS and GUITARS

  9. #68
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Republic of Dead Cell Holler, Occupied Territories of AL, former USA
    Posts
    7,422
    Quote Originally Posted by apvbguy View Post
    I'm not playing that game, I live in FLA, I carry in FLA, I know the laws in FLA. if you think my interpretation of the law is wrong it is on you to prove me wrong.
    You are a contrarian cuss, aren't you? I went way out of my way to make it clear that I wasn't even trying to challenge what you said, I just used your reply to educate the several people throughout these threads who ignore what the standard is that justifies the use of force in FL (and everywhere else in America that I'm aware of). That standard is the "reasonable belief" standard.

    You acknowledged that I was correct on that point, but then challenged me on an unrelated assertion that I had "overstated" FL law because, according to you, FL law provides that all assaults are assumed to be deadly, apparently taking the "reasonable belief" standard completely out of the equation. You cited FL's (completely unrelated to this case) Castle Doctrine, as well as SYG laws as the basis for that assertion. I don't know how I can be correct that the "reasonable belief" standard is, indeed, the standard, while at the same time "overstating" the law that you then say I'm incorrect about, but there it is.

    I replied with the entire Code section and stated, again correctly, that the "reasonable belief" standard runs throughout the entire code section covering justifiable use of deadly force, parts of which include the Castle Doctrine and SYG sections that you implied do not require any reasonable belief of great bodily injury or death being imminent. By linking to the code itself, and summarizing that which supports my side of the point in dispute, I have already offered the proof of my position. I said:

    Quote Originally Posted by BluesStringer View Post
    Read it for yourself: FL Code Section On Use Of Force

    You will find that the "reasonable person" standard applies throughout.

    This case has nothing to do with Castle Doctrine (inside one's home, in some jurisdictions one's property and/or vehicle), and the defense declined the opportunity to force a SYG hearing before trial. This is a straight self defense case, and all the laws covering the justifiable use of force are covered in the link above, including the so-called "Castle Doctrine" and "Stand Your Ground" sections BTW. If you can find a code sub-section that says that all assaults are assumed to be deadly irrespective of all other details and circumstances of the encounter, post it up and I'll cede the point that I "overstated" FL law. Good luck with that.

    Blues
    Clearly, throughout this exchange, I had no intention of fighting with you, playing games with you, or even challenging you in any way. I simply stated the correct and accurate summary of what I read straight out of the Florida Criminal Code section on use of deadly force.

    If I were interested in playing games with you, I would throw a penalty flag here and state that your gross violation of the rules is tantamount to you forfeiting the contest. I have proven my point, you have failed to even attempt to prove yours. Game over. Better luck next season.

    Blues
    No one has ever heard me say that I "hate" cops, because I don't. This is why I will never trust one again though: You just never know...

  10. #69
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    The Great State of Texas "Remember the Alamo"
    Posts
    2,825

    Thumbs down

    Quote Originally Posted by Stengun View Post
    Howdy FN1910,

    Actually if you look at the facts of the case there is plenty of evidence that proves that George did in fact follow Martin.

    Look at where George's vehicle was parked and where the incident took place and the only way George could have got to where the incident happened was if he was trying to follow Martin.

    Based on the girl that Martin was talking to on the phone Martin said George was out of breath from chasing him and the girl said she could hear a man the was breathing heavily.

    Since George was 5' 7.5" tall and weighed 204lbs and was NOT muscular it's a safe bet to say he was very out of shape at the time of the incident.

    Pretty simple.

    Paul
    ~Howdy Doody~

    Actually if 'you' really looked into the facts, you would see that Zimmerman was not breaking any laws if he was following Martin as you stated.
    Following someone out in public is perfectly legal.
    But blinsiding someone and punching them in the nose without provocation is 'illegal'...Slamming someone's head into the concrete with deadly force is also 'illegal'.

    If you don't like the law's then try to change the laws, but please stop your biased bloviating.

    Also, Based on statements made by that illiterate girlfriend of Martin (Who has changed her story numerous times) I would not give much creedence to anything that she 'claims' to have heard since she has been proven to be both a racist and a liar on the stand.

    Zimmerman is/was not in as good of physical shape as his attacker Martin (I'll give you that)...
    That's why 'disparity of force' came into play.

    Pretty simple.

    ~Outlaw~
    Fascist's are Magicians...They can make our Property, our Freedom's & even our Children 'Disappear'.
    ~Outlaw~

  11. #70
    Quote Originally Posted by BC1 View Post
    You need to contact Mark Meara an tell him he's doing it wrong. You need to call our guy and tell him he also doesn't know anything about FL law, despite passing the bar. Because, as you say, you live in FL.
    I don't need to call you guy. why would I? he couldn't care less about my views and I am not impressed by him!
    you are easily impressed, the fact that he passed the bar indicates a level of competency it doesn't shed any light on skill. if he says he is confused by the law he isn't much of an attorney, the laws can be ambiguous and they are ambiguous just so guys like him can make a living bending them in favor of their clients so for him to make such a statement that he is confused by the law just proves my point.

    Quote Originally Posted by BC1 View Post
    This thing was never ending with a SYG hearing. Know how they say never say never? I'm saying never. His tactic was very smart an the proof is he's winning this case.
    that is a conclusion I didn't offer, in court, as with anything, winning during the game means little, when he WINS and is not guilty and is a free man then you can say it was a great tactic.

Page 7 of 17 FirstFirst ... 56789 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Quantcast