Serious Defect In Stand Your Ground Laws

"Imminent?" What is "imminent?" Ongoing? Any second? Any Minute?

What? Nothing in the law defining "imminent?

That is why it is bad law.

And

"Mall Cop" is a description of your profession. Perhaps you'd prefer "rent-a-cop?"

 

But there is plenty of case law. Imminent as it relates to self-defense is force or the threat of force the case law has been posted here plenty of times.

Seriously there have been thousands upon thousands of self-defense cases over the years. What on earth makes you think that these issues haven't already been hammered out? You would think that Zimmerman is the first person to ever claim self-defense.

 

What a dumb thread. Normal, well adjusted people would never attack anyone just because of verbal provocation. If someone does, then yes you can retaliate with deadly force, even kill them in self-defense. Such unstable person is a threat to society anyway.

And none of this applies to Zimmerman case, because he did not even use stand your ground in his defense. It was all plain old self-defense.

 

http://www.hlntv.com/video/2013/07/01/george-zimmerman-trial-full-non-emergency-call

 

Your point being?

 

The number of times you have posted this I'm inclined to think that there should be a rule against posting known proven frauds and fakes as real evidence.

Everyone knows that he tape was edited to change the context. NBC is being sued for it. To keep posting a fake edit when you know its fake should be against forum rules.

 

Zimmy is then missing for 2 minutes ... this means he hunted down Martin all around the complex ... confirmed by *what's this crazy ass cracka doing following me* ... this means it was Martin who was standing his ground ...

Why Zimmies insist on defending a murderer simply means they have no regard for life ... not even their own.

 

not about "self defense" which requires the person making the claim to attempt to avoid

about stand your ground which allows the use of deadly force without the presence of a demonstrable threat (reasonably feels) and makes no requirement that the person making the claim attempt to avoid.

 

The two minutes is established by believing Rachael's testimony that the phone cut off as the assault started.

As I have said before I'm not inclined to believe Rachael that her phone cut off when the attack happened. I believe that she is lying and is telling the story the Crump instructed her to tell.

While the phone did cut off, given the location where it was found I think that Rachael heard a lot more than Crump is letting her say. Had it cut off at the start it should have been found at the T by Zimmerman's keys. I believe that she heard a great deal of Martins attack on Zimmerman before Martin discarded the phone south of the T where he was pummeling Zimmerman.

Discounting Rachael's testimony of the assault starting as her phone cut off discounts the 2 minutes.

The timeline of the 911 calls also discounts Rachael testimony as well. The first 911 call came in 11 seconds after Rachael's phone records show that the call disconnected. This is too short of a time frame to be believable. In 11 seconds someone saw the confrontation, processed what was happening, went and got their phone, and called 911.

Nope sorry, not reasonable by any stretch of the imagination. Rachael is lying. The assault had been ongoing for a lot longer than she claims when the phone cut off.

 

You call that a confirmation? I call it a speculation, and so do the courts. There is this thing called "standard of proof", speculations and hints do not qualify. For all we know, Zimmy could have followed him, or not followed him (that is completely irrelevant anyway), and Martin could still have attacked first.

 

What constitutes immediate threat and reasonable fear is the same for both duty to retreat and stand your ground. These questions have been asked and answered by the courts thousands of times. Your willful ignorance is of no concern to me.

Again the courts have defined what constitutes reasonable, force or threat of force. This is not complicated and the law isn't vague.

 

In the police interview ... Serino asks Zimmy why he didn't just roll down his window when *Martin was circling his car* and ask Martin what he was doing ... Zimmy stated he was sacred ...

This isn't mentioned in the 911 call ... then Zimmy tells insHannity he wasn't scared ... and claims he was not following Martin, and tells insHannity ... *I meant that I was going in the same direction as him, to keep an eye on him so that I could tell the police where he was going ... I didn't mean that I was actually pursuing him."

 

This post in no way addresses my post which questions the 2 minute assumption. You are just throwing (*)(*)(*)(*) at the wall at this point.

 

Zimmy is missing for 2 minutes ... this is fact ... either Zimmy was running around the complex or he was fighting Martin for 2 minutes ...

 

First by HLN own reenactment it took 20 seconds for the reporter to walk to the point in the T where Zimmerman says the confrontation started and it took Zimmerman 25 seconds in his.

Then have to take into account that time it took him to put his phone away and start walking back.

So that is already a good chunk of your two minutes gone.

Then there is the verbal confrontation. Which is even more time gone.

So no its not unreasonable that it took about a minute before the first call came in.

 

Zimmy tells insHannity Martin looked like he was up to no good. Like he was on drugs.

*I felt he was suspicious because it was raining.
He was in-between houses, cutting in-between houses, and he was walking very leisurely for the weather.
I -- it didn't look like he was a resident that went to check their mail and got caught in the rain and was hurrying back home.
He didn't look like a fitness fanatic that would train in the rain*

When Zimmy tells Sernio *Martin was *running* .... he then tells insHannity ... *Maybe I said running, but he was more ... like skipping, going away quickly.
But he wasn't running out of fear*

 

And that is relevant to what I posted how?

 

For everyone who keeps saying Stand Your Ground wasn’t factor in the trial. In the after trail interviews the jurors said they discussed and considered it in their deliberations.
JUDGES INSTRUCTIONS TO THE JURY: READ THE THIRD PARAGRAPH
JUSTIFIABLE USE OF DEADLY FORCE
An issue in this case is whether George Zimmerman acted in self-defense. It is a defense to the crime of Second Degree Murder, and the lesser included offense of Manslaughter, if the death of Trayvon Martin resulted from the justifiable use of deadly force.
“Deadly force” means force likely to cause death or great bodily harm.

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.

In considering the issue of self-defense, you may take into account the relative physical abilities and capacities of George Zimmerman and Trayvon Martin.
If in your consideration of the issue of self-defense you have a reasonable doubt on the question of whether George Zimmerman was justified in the use of deadly force, you should find George Zimmerman not guilty.

ZIMMERMAN VIOLATED ALL THE NEIGHBORHOOD WARCH RULES:Read Them
The Sanford police posted its neighborhood watch program handbook on the internet
Relevant portions:
You will add your “eyes and ears” to those of the Police Department which
cannot be everywhere, all the time, by keeping a watchful eye and open ear to
what is happening in your neighborhood. You will extend their ability to provide security by reporting anything unusual or suspicious, 24 hours a day, seven days a week, so they can follow up on your leads. What you will not do is get physically involved with any activity you report or apprehension of any suspicious
persons. This is the job of the law enforcement agency.

...10. Remember always that your responsibility is to report crime. Do not take any risks to prevent a crime or try to make an arrest. The responsibility for apprehending criminals belongs to the police department.

The rules are very explicit. The citizen neighborhood watch is to report crime or suspicious activity, and not get physically involved with any activity or apprehension of any suspicious person.

Zimmerman, who was the neighborhood watch chief, clearly violated these rules!
Therefore he was somewhere he wasn’t supposed to be at that point in time, because he was told not to follow TM, and violated the law.


This whole thing boils down to the fact if Zimmernan had mined his own friggin business the this
would never have happened, but no he had to play MACHO POLICE MAN and an innocent
person is dead PERIOD!. I'm a 60's + year old white man and he had been following me I would have confronted his A $ $ which in itself was confrontational, intimidating ,and scary !!

 

All right, so it was considered in some way. But the outcome would be the same, stand your ground or not. Arguments of the defense do not depend on SYG laws in any way.

Certainly not. Zimmerman had a right to be there and not the rules of neighbourhood watch nor the suggestion of 911 operator change anything on this fact.

Nope, that is actually irrelevant, and even the juror says so. What is important is the actual fight and seconds before it, not who followed who.

I strongly advise against doing something so stupid and attacking someone who merely follows you, otherwise you may get killed in just self-defense.

 

Oh yeah, man Jump right on those typos, and pretend they're the way the guy really talks. Uh huh....

I can't believe after must have been a half dozen people corrected your goofy post (like you said), that you now come back and still HA HA HA, say the same idiotic thing, all over again. EARTH TO DON: Anybody can walk up to anybody and ask them a question. By your goofy notion, people would be breaking the law if they walked up to someone and asked "Excuse me, do you know what time it is ?" Or ask for directions, as a million people do every day, all over America. I feel silly even responding to such nonsense. Dude, are you all right ? I mean really. Sheeeeesh!!

 

I'm not talking about everyday conversation and you know it. I'm talking about approaching someone especially in the dark and after following them for several blocks and saying ,"Hey you or worse ,what the blank you doing around here". I wonder what kind of reaction you're going to get he majority of the time. It will probably along the lines ," If I thought it was any of your blanking business I'd tell you". Then you'd pull a gun ,I would stand my ground and try to make you eat it ,you'd kill me and get away with because I'm dead. SOUND FAMILIAR !

 

And guess what its an armed PI looking to serve process. You can confront him if you want but if you use force like Martin, bang you are a dead 60+ year old and no one gives a (*)(*)(*)(*) because you were stupid.

 

No it doesn't sound familiar because I find it far fetched that the two witnesses who saw the beat down never saw a gun.

 

What am I ? A dictionary ? Imminent means right now, that's what it means. One or two seconds.

Mallcop and rent-a-cop are deliberate slurs and constitute verbal abuse, and that's why you're using them, and that's why I'm reporting you for rules violations. And security guards aren't cops. ANd cops aren't security guards. The two professions are actually very different from one another. Only similarity might be the uniforms.