Trayvon Martin and "Stand Your Ground" in FL

[Junior]

"Junior"

 

 

 

Martin was seen by who? Can you back that statement up with a link? Because I'm 99.999% sure you can't.

 

 

Martin was identified by his skin color and clothing as being on top, backed up by Zimmerman being wet laying in the wet grass. Indeed, the witness could see if Zimmerman's head was on concrete or not, but O'Mara testified that the abrasions were consistent with head to concrete contact.

 

http://www.lasvegass.../#axzz2Z8UJQtPw

 

http://abcnews.go.co...36#.Uc2PmT5xte5

 

Selma Mora, another witness, testified Thursday that Zimmerman was on top of Martin in the moments before a gunshot ended the fight.

 

Mora told the court Thursday that at some point she saw a man in "patterns between black and red" on top, indicating Zimmerman.

 

"One of them was on the ground, and the other one was on top in position like a rider," Mora, who speaks Spanish, testified through a translator.

[tschu]

Can't we just FINALLY AGREE that nobody knows what happened? Any investigator will tell you that eyewitness testimony is all but worthless. Zimmerman is obviously a giant f#*k stick and his life is completely ruined because of this anyway even though he isn't in jail, so it's par for the course. Tired of all this outrage.

[carlfense]

By all accounts he was the person on top pummeling Zimmerman, which is illegal, he used concrete as a weapon, which is attempted murder, or assault with a deadly weapon.

No. That's not "using a weapon."

 

Explain how that is not using a weapon? If I push someone into a wood chipper, that's not using a weapon?

That's not how it works. If you want to say that Martin used a weapon you have to prove that he used a weapon . . . I don't have to prove that he didn't use a weapon.

 

If it had been hard packed dirt, would you be trying to claim that he used dirt as a weapon?

 

(Now if you pick up a chunk of concrete and hit someone with it . . . that would be "using a weapon.")

 

Witness and police reports back up Zimmerman's story about the concrete. I said in the first quote, that he used concrete as a weapon, he used the concrete inherent density to inflect more damage to Zimmerman than if his head was on grass or dirt. So alter your words all you want, and spin your spin, but Martin was seen on top of Zimmerman pounding his head into concrete, which is much more damaging to the brain that if he would just punch him while they were both standing upright.

No spin necessary. Show me a single case where someone has been convicted of "using a weapon" in a situation similar to the one that you've described. If you want to make the accusation, you need to bring the proof.

 

Were I a betting man . . . I'd bet that I'm a bit more familiar with this particular area than yourself.

[Ziggy]

No spin necessary. Show me a single case where someone has been convicted of "using a weapon" in a situation similar to the one that you've described. If you want to make the accusation, you need to bring the proof.

 

 

 

Were I a betting man . . . I'd bet that I'm a bit more familiar with this particular area than yourself.

 

 

http://blogs.findlaw...dly-weapon.html

Edited July 15, 2013 by Ziggy

[husker_99]

Leave it to Obama to turn Trayvon's case into another "gun violence" speech.

Maybe he needs to go clean up Chicago and DC first where guns laws are so restrictive only criminals have one and explain why those 2 cities have a very high crime rate.

 

For the 100000th time:

Chicago is seen as having some of the most restrictive gun ordinances in the country. Gun shops are banned, and no civilian gun ranges exist. There is a ban on both assault weapons and high-capacity magazines. But more than 15,000 of the guns traced by the police came from just outside the city limits in Cook County and in neighboring towns that permit gun stores.

 

http://www.nytimes.c...rom.html?ref=us

 

Local gun laws don't matter. So you can't buy a gun in Cook county, you can in the neighboring county and there clearly isn't a regulated border between the two. It isn't hard to imagine buying a gun outside of and driving it into Cook county.

i was never talking about outside Chicago.

[carlfense]

http://blogs.findlaw...dly-weapon.html

Not Found

 

The requested URL /opinions/documents/B231854.PDF was not found on this server.

http://www.courts.ca...nts/B231854.PDF

^^^Where's the case?

 

Edit: I assume this is the case that you're talking about? http://lawofselfdefense.com/law_case/j-l-v-people-2012-cal-app-lexis-679-ca-ct-app-2012/

 

I don't have a Lexis subscription so I can't shepardize it.

[Ziggy]

No spin necessary. Show me a single case where someone has been convicted of "using a weapon" in a situation similar to the one that you've described. If you want to make the accusation, you need to bring the proof.

 

 

 

Were I a betting man . . . I'd bet that I'm a bit more familiar with this particular area than yourself.

 

 

http://blogs.findlaw...dly-weapon.html

Not Found

 

The requested URL /opinions/documents/B231854.PDF was not found on this server.

http://www.courts.ca...nts/B231854.PDF

^^^Where's the case?

 

Oh come on, you can google like everyone else, don't play dumb.

 

http://lawofselfdefense.com/law_case/j-l-v-people-2012-cal-app-lexis-679-ca-ct-app-2012/

[carlfense]

Oh come on, you can google like everyone else, don't play dumb.

 

http://lawofselfdefe...ca-ct-app-2012/

That non-working link was from your citation.

 

What's the current status of that case? Westlaw or state citation if possible . . . Lexis won't get me far.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Next . . . we're talking about Trayvon Martin and George Zimmerman in Florida . . . right? You're a long ways away . . .

[Mavric]

Oh come on, you can google like everyone else, don't play dumb.

 

http://lawofselfdefe...ca-ct-app-2012/

That non-working link was from your citation.

 

What's the current status of that case? Westlaw or state citation if possible . . . Lexis won't get me far.

 

Next . . . we're talking about Trayvon Martin and George Zimmerman in Florida . . . right? You're a long ways away . . .

Link works fine for me.

 

The sidewalk, when used improperly, can be a deadly weapon.

 

The Second Appellate District Court upheld a juvenile offender’s conviction for assault with a deadly weapon this week, finding that the defendant didn’t actually have to touch the sidewalk to use the sidewalk as a deadly weapon. (Here, the defendant allegedly punched, stomped, and kicked the victim’s face while the victim was lying on the sidewalk.)

 

I don't see in your original challenge where you specified the case had to be in Florida. Would you like to re-issue?

[carlfense]

Link works fine for me.

This link works fine for you? http://www.courts.ca...nts/B231854.PDF

 

That's the link from Ziggy's first blog post.

I don't see in your original challenge where you specified the case had to be in Florida.

Was Ziggy talking about someone other than Trayvon Martin and George Zimmerman?

 

Or are we discussing whether a sidewalk is a weapon anywhere in the world?

[zoogs]

In fact, I can understand passionate feelings regarding the death of an unarmed teenager . . . but it is very hard for me to understand passionate feelings on behalf of Zimmerman . . .

 

I think what everyone is passionate about is the justice system here. There are people who believe that it would have been wrong to convict Zimmerman, but that shouldn't be confused with feelings "on behalf" of a specific guy. The law and the system are far beyond that.

 

Unless all we're debating is whether to, collectively as an internet forum, condemn Zimmerman for being 'a really bad guy.' While I understand the sensationalism and fascination that surrounds any public or notorious figure, isn't that discussion both a little meaningless, and outside the scope of what we can really determine?

 

He grabbed at his gun, he had the gun holstered.

How could he grab at a holstered and concealed gun?

 

Maybe I'm not as read up on this as some of you, but aren't we pretty seriously deep in some who can possibly really say land? Am I wrong in saying that even all available 'facts' still paint an incomplete picture and that, unfortunately, we don't know enough to authoritatively speak about the scenario?

 

It does seem that Zimmerman's behavior while carrying a weapon placed himself and others in a recklessly dangerous situation. And yeah, of course he'd say it was in self-defense, but isn't it entirely possible, too, that he wasn't seeking a confrontation, and Trayvon got spooked and decided to confront him first -- whereupon events rapidly escalated?

 

I don't understand what seems to be a widespread, confidently held sentiment -- and I'm not necessarily ascribing it to anyone in this thread, one which I've only loosely read -- that this case was clearly decided in the wrong way. The burden of the prosecution was beyond all reasonable doubt for murder two, and that's a high bar to be arguing against from the armchair.

 

I'll qualify this following by saying I'm not a lawyer, but I am a little surprised that Zimmerman either wasn't charged or wasn't found guilty of something lesser, because it does seem that reckless vigilante behavior resulting in death is something that maybe could have constituted manslaughter.

[Mavric]

Link works fine for me.

This link works fine for you? http://www.courts.ca...nts/B231854.PDF

 

That's the link from Ziggy's first blog post.

Sorry. Didn't see the URL changed.

 

I don't see in your original challenge where you specified the case had to be in Florida.

Was Ziggy talking about someone other than Trayvon Martin and George Zimmerman?

 

Or are we discussing whether a sidewalk is a weapon anywhere in the world?

You tell me. It was your challenge.

[carlfense]

I think what everyone is passionate about is the justice system here.

I don't think that I get what you're saying. Donating money to Zimmerman's defense seems to go a bit beyond passion about the justice system. (Don't think anyone here donated money . . . but a lot of people did.)

 

. . . aren't we pretty seriously deep in some who can possibly really say land? Am I wrong in saying that even all available 'facts' still paint an incomplete picture and that, unfortunately, we don't know enough to authoritatively speak about the scenario?

Absolutely. I don't think anyone has said otherwise?

 

It does seem that Zimmerman's behavior while carrying a weapon placed himself and others in a recklessly dangerous situation. And yeah, of course he'd say it was in self-defense, but isn't it entirely possible, too, that he wasn't seeking a confrontation, and Trayvon got spooked and decided to confront him first -- whereupon events rapidly escalated?

Absolutely. In which case, Trayvon could have conceivably asserted self-defense . . . were he alive to do so.

 

I don't understand what seems to be a widespread, confidently held sentiment -- and I'm not necessarily ascribing it to anyone in this thread, one which I've only loosely read -- that this case was clearly decided in the wrong way.

I think that a not guilty verdict is totally reasonable. If someone here truly believes that this case was decided in the wrong way I would definitely disagree with them. It's a tough case.

 

I'll qualify this following by saying I'm not a lawyer, but I am a little surprised that Zimmerman either wasn't charged or wasn't found guilty of something lesser, because it does seem that reckless vigilante behavior resulting in death is something that maybe could have constituted manslaughter.

My guess was manslaughter or nothing. I think that an argument could ethically be made for 2d degree murder but the proof just wasn't sufficient.

[carlfense]

You tell me. It was your challenge.

T'was. And it's possible that Ziggy has an on point case.

 

But if he's hanging his hat on a California Juvenile Court case when he's claiming assault with a weapon in Florida . . . well . . .

[Ziggy]

Oh come on, you can google like everyone else, don't play dumb.

 

http://lawofselfdefe...ca-ct-app-2012/

That non-working link was from your citation.

 

What's the current status of that case? Westlaw or state citation if possible . . . Lexis won't get me far.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Next . . . we're talking about Trayvon Martin and George Zimmerman in Florida . . . right? You're a long ways away . . .

 

No spin necessary. Show me a single case where someone has been convicted of "using a weapon" in a situation similar to the one that you've described. If you want to make the accusation, you need to bring the proof.

 

 

 

Were I a betting man . . . I'd bet that I'm a bit more familiar with this particular area than yourself.

 

 

http://blogs.findlaw...dly-weapon.html

 

 

If I am not mistaken, you are the one who called me out when I said that concrete could be considered as a use of a deadly weapon in the Zimmerman/Martin Case. So you are the one with the burden of proof, to show how I am wrong. And then asked for a single case, and so I give you one, then you want me to find you the actual case as if the link didn't provide enough information for you to find it yourself, as a lawyer and all. You cant move the goalposts, and you probably shouldn't be a betting man.

Here is another example in Massachusetts.

http://masscases.com/cases/sjc/425/425mass146.html

 

See Commonwealth v. Scott, 408 Mass. 811 , 822-823 (1990) (gag); Commonwealth v. Barrett, 386 Mass. 649 , 655-656 (1982) (aerosol spray can); Commonwealth v. Appleby, supra at 304-305 (riding crop); Commonwealth v. Tarrant, 367 Mass. 411 , 418 (1975) (German shepherd dog); Commonwealth v. Farrell, supra at 615 (lighted cigarettes); Commonwealth v. Mercado, 24 Mass. App. Ct. 391 , 395 (1987) (baseball bat); Commonwealth v. LeBlanc, 3 Mass. App. Ct. 780 , 780 (1975) (automobile door swung knocking police officer down). Our courts have also noted, with approval, decisions in other jurisdictions which have found otherwise innocent items to fit this classification when used in a way which endangers another's safety. Commonwealth v. Appleby, supra at 304. Commonwealth v. Davis, supra at 192-193. See United States v. Loman, 551 F.2d 164, 169 (7th Cir.), cert. denied, 433 U.S. 912 (1977) (walking stick); United States v. Johnson, 324 F.2d 264, 266 (4th Cir.

Page 150

1963) (chair brought down upon victim's head); People v. White, 212 Cal. App. 2d 464, 465 (1963) (a rock); Bennett v. State, 237 Md. 212, 216 (1964) (microphone cord wrapped around victim's neck); People v. Buford, 69 Mich. App. 27, 30 (1976) (dictum) (automobile, broomstick, flashlight and lighter fluid may all be dangerous weapons as used).