Last edited by Democrat152; 07-19-13 at 07:19 AM.
Under SYG laws, if you punch someone in the nose? That does not give you license to shoot them. SYG isn't about retaliation. It's about being in fear of your life. As was Zimmerman. If you choose not to accept what the jury accepted? *shrug* Then I guess you will continue posting nonsensical nonapplicable opinions.
Thank God our legal system is such that a defendant doesn't have to PROVE it happened the way he said....that it's up to the State to prove that it didn't.
God bless America.
Thank you, Quazi!
Last edited by Democrat152; 07-19-13 at 07:32 AM.
Nonetheless, the state failed to prove that George Zimmerman acted in other than self-defense...having absolutely nothing to do with the SYG law
They failed to prove George Zimmerman started the fight. Game over.
Thank you, Quazi!
Last edited by Democrat152; 07-19-13 at 07:47 AM.
Here's what your state would have to prove:
(1) Doesn't apply.KRS § 503.060
Improper use of physical force in self-protection.
Notwithstanding the provisions of KRS 503.050, the use of physical force by a defendant upon another person is not justifiable when:
(1) The defendant is resisting an arrest by a peace officer, recognized to be acting under color of official authority and using no more force than reasonably necessary to effect the arrest, although the arrest is unlawful; or
(2) The defendant, with the intention of causing death or serious physical injury to the other person, provokes the use of physical force by such other person; or
(3) The defendant was the initial aggressor, except that his use of physical force upon the other person under this circumstance is justifiable when:
(a) His initial physical force was nondeadly and the force returned by the other is such that he believes himself to be in imminent danger of death or serious physical injury; or
(b) He withdraws from the encounter and effectively communicates to the other person his intent to do so and the latter nevertheless continues or threatens the use of unlawful physical force.
(2) No evidence presented in GZ's trial supports that premise.
(3) No evidence presented in GZ's trial supports that premise.
Please note (3)(a). Being the initial aggressor does not preclude a claim of self defense.
Clear as day. You are wrong.
Thank you, Quazi!
, your cherry picking. Like I said, I live here, I have seen a plenty of trials, so its not going to work on me. If Martin was trying to strangle Zimmerman, it might have been different, but all Zimmerman had to show was a bloody nose and few scratches, it wouldn't take a genius to figure out he just got scared when he started to lose. I would appreciate it if you gave me the link to the page you got KRS 503.060 on, so I may disprove you without searching online forever. To save some time, I just typed in "Self-Defense" into a legal dictionary, here is an excerpt that might interest you: "Generally a person may use REASONABLE FORCE when it appears reasonably necessary to prevent an impending injury. A person using force in self-defense should use only so much force as is required to repel the attack. Nondeadly force can be used to repel either a nondeadly attack or a deadly attack. Deadly Force may be used to fend off an attacker who is using deadly force but may not be used to repel an attacker who is not using deadly force. Martin's fists may have hurt, but they weren't deadly.
"We have met the enemy and they are ours..." -- Oliver Hazard Perry
"I don't want a piece of you... I want the whole thing!" -- Bob Barker