Florida vs. Zimmerman - Q.E.D????????

[Dude Love]

Only if you think a "threat" and having your nose broken and head slammed against the pavement are the same.

So basically Zimmerman was too big of a puss to fight fair? If he was a hockey player he wouldn't fight...he'd just wildly swing his stick the whole time. I declare box.

[5mn_Major]

His attorney says Zimmerman was beat badly...obviously there's no witnesses and the claim is put out by someone trying to save himself. We'll see. At this point, Zimmerman's attorney claimed there was a broken nose. Subsequently, its been studied and this may not be the case.

Vidor Friedman, the president of the Florida College of Emergency Physicians, said footage of Zimmerman's face didn't appear to show a broken nose, ABC News reported.

"All of the ridges in his nose are clearly defined," he said. "You would expect significant swelling in the hour or two after a break. There appears to be none. It doesn't look like his nose was broken or badly broken."

In this case, there easily could be a different outcome between moral guilt and guilt under Florida laws as they exist.

[Old Pio]

So basically Zimmerman was too big of a puss to fight fair? If he was a hockey player he wouldn't fight...he'd just wildly swing his stick the whole time. I declare box.

I'm too good a sport to note that you keep moving the goal posts on this argument. I've never had my nose broken and sincerely hope to keep that record in tact, but I'd imagine it can be an extremely disorienting thing, especially if the punch (or punches) is followed by someone on top of you, slamming your head on the pavement. It would certainly have been preferable if, instead of a gun, Zimmerman had a stick and was able to cross check the kid into the next time zone.

[Old Pio]

His attorney says Zimmerman was beat badly...obviously there's no witnesses and the claim is put out by someone trying to save himself. We'll see. At this point, Zimmerman's attorney claimed there was a broken nose. Subsequently, its been studied and this may not be the case.

Vidor Friedman, the president of the Florida College of Emergency Physicians, said footage of Zimmerman's face didn't appear to show a broken nose, ABC News reported.

"All of the ridges in his nose are clearly defined," he said. "You would expect significant swelling in the hour or two after a break. There appears to be none. It doesn't look like his nose was broken or badly broken."

In this case, there easily could be a different outcome between moral guilt and guilt under Florida laws as they exist.

I would prefer to rely on people who actually saw or teated Zimmerman. If, as we've been told, he sought medical attention after the event, then the X-rays and such should resolve the matter. Plus, sometimes X-rays are taken as a precaution. And I'm not sure I trust a "diagnosis" from a doctor so full of weasel words.

I believe the 13-year old "witness" claims to have seen Martin attacking Zimmerman.

You are right, we'll see. As to moral guilt, that would be a function of the courts in Iran. Our courts decide whether the evidence adduced is sufficient to establish guilt beyond a reasonable doubt for breaking the law and to assess punishment. You know, there's a chance this whole matter was a conflation of bad judgements, bad timing, ineptness and punkishness.

[unofan]

I would prefer to rely on people who actually saw or teated Zimmerman. If, as we've been told, he sought medical attention after the event, then the X-rays and such should resolve the matter.

So why doesn't Zimmerman sign a release to allow his doctors to give their statements? Or ****, just get his medical records himself and release those? I mean, comeon, that'd be an easy step to take in the PR battle, if everything is as he says it is.

[unofan]

Uhh...I'm pretty sure they still yell "police, freeze" when aiming their weapon at someone.

That's because there's all sorts of incentives for them to do that, mainly in the form of extra criminal penalties for disobeying an officer and/or assaulting an officer.

They certainly don't have to, though. Otherwise the whole concept of an undercover detective is a myth.

[Old Pio]

So why doesn't Zimmerman sign a release to allow his doctors to give their statements? Or ****, just get his medical records himself and release those? I mean, comeon, that'd be an easy step to take in the PR battle, if everything is as he says it is.

Beats me. I don't think doctor/patient applies to cops or emts. And haven't we been told that both examined him at the scene? And if the emts provided treatment, surely that's not privileged. If it is, then see reaction number one: beats me. Of course, at this point he isn't much interested in convincing us. And the prosecutor has already made up her mind, so what would be the point? He might want to bring it up before a judge, though.

[Old Pio]

That's because there's all sorts of incentives for them to do that, mainly in the form of extra criminal penalties for disobeying an officer and/or assaulting an officer.

They certainly don't have to, though. Otherwise the whole concept of an undercover detective is a myth.

I have no personal knowledge of this you understand, but I'm told some working girls ask their johns if they're cops, assuming if they are officers they have to admit it. I don't think that dog hunts.

[5mn_Major]

As to moral guilt, that would be a function of the courts in Iran. Our courts decide whether the evidence adduced is sufficient to establish guilt beyond a reasonable doubt for breaking the law and to assess punishment. You know, there's a chance this whole matter was a conflation of bad judgements, bad timing, ineptness and punkishness.

Unless he gets off rather weakly on stand your ground. But that's a single opinion.

[Old Pio]

Unless he gets off rather weakly on stand your ground. But that's a single opinion.

His lawyer says he's going to claim stand your groud. Who knows what Florida law holds?

[Twitch Boy]

Hoo boy.

Judge might be thrown out because her husband works with a CNN legal analyst.

Actually, that's probably not the worst thing to have happen. Best thing they can do is stall the process until America gets distracted by another shiny and the howling mob goes away.

[Rimbaud]

Hoo boy.

Judge might be thrown out because her husband works with a CNN legal analyst.

Actually, that's probably not the worst thing to have happen. Best thing they can do is stall the process until America gets distracted by another shiny and the howling mob goes away.

What this country needs at a time like this is another attractive white woman to get kidnapped.

[pirate]

What this country needs at a time like this is another attractive white woman to get kidnapped.

How about a baby in a well? That is a good one.

A white baby.

A white baby with a family stricken by a recent tornado.

And a drought.

With a birthmark that looks like Madonna (the singer, not the other one).

And 9 brothers and sisters so people can donate 23 years worth of diapers.

I think that would do it.

[Twitch Boy]

How about a baby in a well? That is a good one.

A white baby.

A white baby with a family stricken by a recent tornado.

And a drought.

With a birthmark that looks like Madonna (the singer, not the other one).

And 9 brothers and sisters so people can donate 23 years worth of diapers.

I think that would do it.

Lying next to a dead kitten. And then saved by a 3-month-old puppy who was a rescue from a shelter. And then Justin Bieber, Tim Tebow, and the cast of Glee show up and throw him a birthday party. And then his mother sees Jesus' face in the bottom of the well. And then they get their own reality show.

[dxmnkd316]

Subscribed because this will be a well-hung jury

[FreshFish]

A Yale law school student presents a survey and brief history of state "Stand Your Ground" laws in today's Wall Street Journal. No snarky asides in this article either (which is an annoying tendency they have sometimes in otherwise fact-based articles).

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000...inion_newsreel

In Florida, as in most states, a person claiming self-defense must show that he (1) reasonably believed that such force was (2) necessary to protect himself against (3) the imminent and (4) unlawful use of force by another.

....


prosecutors have a more difficult case. Now, they must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Mr. Zimmerman did not reasonably fear for his life. The police report contains some evidence to back Mr. Zimmerman's self-defense claim. Mr. Zimmerman reportedly sustained a broken nose, cuts to the back of his head, and had grass stains on the back of his shirt. These facts could provide reasonable doubt on the self-defense question if jurors thought that Martin may have had Mr. Zimmerman pinned to the ground and was beating him. This inquiry is much more fact-intensive than relying on Mr. Zimmerman's ability to leave the scene.

Nevertheless, even with Florida's Stand Your Ground law, Mr. Zimmerman will have difficulty asserting a successful self-defense claim. Stand Your Ground laws do not affect most basic requirements of pleading self-defense. Individuals using lethal force in self-defense must reasonably believe that they are in imminent danger of death or serious bodily injury—in other words, an average person, given the facts as Mr. Zimmerman knew them, would have reached the same inferences about the danger Martin posed and the necessity of using deadly force to avoid it. Mr. Zimmerman's mere honest beliefs will not suffice.

Nor does the Stand Your Ground law permit individuals to use disproportionate force in self-defense. Mr. Zimmerman must demonstrate that he reasonably feared that Martin was going to kill him, cause great bodily injury (e.g., permanent disfigurement), or commit a forcible felony. A few cuts and a broken nose may not rise to this level. And Mr. Zimmerman will have to show that he was not the initial aggressor

[Kepler]

A Yale law school student presents a survey and brief history of state "Stand Your Ground" laws in today's Wall Street Journal. No snarky asides in this article either (which is an annoying tendency they have sometimes in otherwise fact-based articles).

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000...inion_newsreel

Thanks for posting this.

[goldy_331]

What this country needs at a time like this is another attractive white woman to get kidnapped.

That and a Sharks loss in the first round.

[5mn_Major]

A Yale law school student presents a survey and brief history of state "Stand Your Ground" laws in today's Wall Street Journal. No snarky asides in this article either (which is an annoying tendency they have sometimes in otherwise fact-based articles).

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000...inion_newsreel

As stated, it may be difficult to prove this. But keep in mind, there has been considerable success in doing so in the past as 'justifiable homicides' tripled after the law was put into practice. So the accused are using it fairly successfully.

A key here is the disproportionate use of force issue. The passage says: Nor does the Stand Your Ground law permit individuals to use disproportionate force in self-defense. Mr. Zimmerman must demonstrate that he reasonably feared that Martin was going to kill him, cause great bodily injury (e.g., permanent disfigurement), or commit a forcible felony.

I see that a bit differently than it was positioned here. I read this in the law previously and to me it sounds like its legal to shoot a body builder whose picking a fight with you or an unarmed stranger who asks you for your wallet.

[FreshFish]

I see that a bit differently than it was positioned here. I read this in the law previously and to me it sounds like its legal to shoot a body builder whose picking a fight with you or an unarmed stranger who asks you for your wallet.

The author stressed the word "imminent" as one of the necessary conditions; not sure whether your example qualifies or not....

My guess is that the trial may very well be effectively "over" by the end of jury selection: will the defense be able to slip in one person who will vote for jury nullification no matter what the law actually says?