• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Zimmerman case is easy. Read the law.

Excon said:
I am going to go out on a limb here and say you have no idea what the emboldened and highlighted portion means.
Click to expand...

He was walking on public property when he was on the street during his trip.
 
274ina said:
He was walking on public property when he was on the street during his trip.
Click to expand...
LOeffingL

You actually believe that it's illegal to wear a hood while walking on the street in the rain?
Have you considered whether or not that law has been challenged?
Have you wondered if you might be wrong about your interpretation of that law's language?
 
Sarcogito said:
So you're saying since Trayvon had a right to be there (it was his dad's neighborhood), and if he felt in fear because this guy was following him and then upon confronting the guy who was following him he saw the guy had a gun, and if he felt in fear for his safety, by this law you have copy and pasted, Trayvon would have been entitled to use deadly force rather than retreat?

I don't have a dog in the fight, but it also isn't as easy as just "reading the law".
Click to expand...

No evidence says Z produced the gun first.
Following is not a crime.
 
MaggieD said:
Hate to burst your balloon, but he wasn't on "the public property of any municipality or county of the state." He was on private property. If he were in the police station? You might have a case.

This case is filled with nuances. It's not cut-and-dried by any means.
Click to expand...

he was during the time Z was watching him. (on the street as he cut thru the area) So that supports his call to police and following him.
 
274ina said:
776.013

(3) A person who is not engaged in an unlawful activity and who is attacked in any other place where he or she has a right to be has no duty to retreat and has the right to stand his or her ground and meet force with force, including deadly force if he or she reasonably believes it is necessary to do so to prevent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the commission of a forcible felony.


And then of course there is this law that Trayvon was also violating.

876.13 Wearing mask, hood, or other device on public property.—No person or persons shall in this state, while wearing any mask, hood, or device whereby any portion of the face is so hidden, concealed, or covered as to conceal the identity of the wearer, enter upon, or be, or appear upon or within the public property of any municipality or county of the state.
Click to expand...


The Law is interpreted by jury instructions.


No duty to retreat. § 776.013(3), Fla. Stat. See Novak v. State 974 So. 2d 520 (Fla. 4th DCA 2008) regarding unlawful activity. There is no duty to retreat where the defendant was not engaged in any unlawful activity other than the crime(s) for which the defendant asserts the justification.
If the defendant [was not engaged in an unlawful activity and] was attacked in any place where [he] [she] had a right to be, [he] [she] had no duty to retreat and had the right to stand [his] [her] ground and meet force with force, including deadly force, if [he] [she] reasonably believed that it was necessary to do so to prevent death or great bodily harm to [himself] [herself] [another] or to prevent the commission of a forcible felony.


If Zim is found to have put Trayvon in fear of injury, then Zim had a duty to retreat.


Where is the proof that Trayvon was not afraid of Zim? Dee Dee? Witness 11?

1. At some point before exiting his SUV, Zim loaded his pistol with a hollow point bullet in the chamber, providing the pistol with point and shoot option, so a firm pull on the trigger would fire a bullet, and no other safety. This meant that Zim’s reason to fear Trayvon was limited.
2. Zim's prejudicial comments to the dispatcher,
3. After Zim had been following Trayvon for a while, Zim told the 911 dispatcher that Trayvon was staring at him, or a period of some time. Trayvon was inside the Gated community, and with a few hundred feet of the residence where he was staying. Then Trayvon started running away from Zim, maybe to see if Zim would follow him.
4. Zim getting out of his vehicle to follow Trayvon, after having followed Trayvon on the street in his car,
5. Zim causing Trayvon to be afraid, and run away from Zim,
6. Then Zim pursuing Trayvon to 100 feet of Trayvon's front door,
7. Then Zim refusing to answer Trayvon's legitimate question, "Why are you following me for?"
8. then Zim speaking in a belligerent attitude toward Trayvon, "What are YOU doing here?"
9. Then reaching in his pocket, apparently still with an aggressive, belligerent expression on his face, continuing from his tone of voice, when Zim was speaking belligerently.
10. Will the jury find Zim's claim that Zim behaved in a peaceable manner in his initial exchange of words with Trayvon, as indicating guilt, because Zim's claim is contradicted by at least two witnesses?


Florida Jury Instruction for Assault
To prove the crime of Assault, the State must prove the following three elements beyond a reasonable doubt:

1. (Defendant) intentionally and unlawfully threatened, either by word or act, to do violence to (victim).

2. At the time, (defendant) appeared to have the ability to carry out the threat.

3. The act of (defendant) created in the mind of (victim) a well-founded fear that the violence was about to take place.

Lesser Included Offenses

ASSAULT — 784.011
CATEGORY ONE CATEGORY TWO FLA. STAT. INS. NO.
None
Attempt 777.04(1) 5.1








//
 
Last edited:
274ina said:
776.013

And then of course there is this law that Trayvon was also violating.

876.13 Wearing mask, hood, or other device on public property.—No person or persons shall in this state, while wearing any mask, hood, or device whereby any portion of the face is so hidden, concealed, or covered as to conceal the identity of the wearer, enter upon, or be, or appear upon or within the public property of any municipality or county of the state.
Click to expand...
If Trayvon's face was concealed, how did Zimmerman identify him as a black individual in his late teens?
 
vendur said:
I'm pretty sure the road(s) trayvon ran across qualify as public property.

He was in violation of that law, but it's largely a unenforced derelict law.
Click to expand...

Prove his face was concealed.

That law is not talking about hoodies ... :roll::roll::roll: it's in respect to covering your face with a hood with the intent of concealing your identity.
 
Last edited:
274ina said:
No evidence says Z produced the gun first.
Following is not a crime.
Click to expand...

Following can be a crime but that is a red herring here because GZ following him, legal or not, is what instigated the entire situation leading to TM being shot and killed.
 
ric27 said:
Wrong....

Even *if* Z was the antagonist

Z would still be justified in shooting M under Florida law if he could not free himself and feared he was in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm
Click to expand...

and because he angrily pursued a juvenile that had committed no crime, GZ will go down for Manslaughter.
 
Thunder said:
and because he angrily pursued a juvenile that had committed no crime, GZ will go down for Manslaughter.
Click to expand...

I think he is going to be so arrogant by the time the trial hits the jury will see right through his BS. His "God's plan" line says it all. He is actually proud of his celebrity and has never shown an ounce of remorse.
 
Furiounova said:
Following can be a crime but that is a red herring here because GZ following him, legal or not, is what instigated the entire situation leading to TM being shot and killed.
Click to expand...

Wrong

That's NOT sufficient provocation to warrant a sucker punch in the nose and continue to savagely beat, the individual
 
Thunder said:
and because he angrily pursued a juvenile that had committed no crime, GZ will go down for Manslaughter.
Click to expand...

That blurp is completely erroneous.

Even pursuing someone is not sufficient provocation to physically attacked another person

Hell, I'll also throw in profiling.....

None are basis to brutally attack another individual
 
ric27 said:
Wrong

That's NOT sufficient provocation to warrant a sucker punch in the nose and continue to savagely beat, the individual
Click to expand...

he wasn't "savagely" beaten.

he didn't go to a hospital and REFUSED to see a counselor or an ENT.

spare us the unnecessary exaggerations.
 
Thunder said:
he wasn't "savagely" beaten.

he didn't go to a hospital and REFUSED to see a counselor or an ENT.

spare us the unnecessary exaggerations.
Click to expand...

Who gives a **** about your perspective.... You were not on the receiving end of it all

To Z, yes because he feared he was in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm and if he couldn't free himself from M's punches and slamming his head into the ground.
 
Thunder said:
we're having a polite and friendly discussion here, there's no need to get soo emotional.
Click to expand...

Are you hitting on me, dear?
 
ric27 said:
That blurp is completely erroneous.

Even pursuing someone is not sufficient provocation to physically attacked another person

Hell, I'll also throw in profiling.....

None are basis to brutally attack another individual
Click to expand...


The question is whether Zim was committing any UNLAWFUL activity during his interaction with Travon, prior to Trayvon punching Zim in the nose.

It is clear on the 911 tape with Zim that Zim knew his actions were putting Trayvon in fear, and Zim continued to further act in a beligerant manner, and then lied about his words and attitude, on his re-enactment tapes. Putting someone in fear is Assault, which is Unlawful.

Zim says that Trayvon was trying to reach for Zim's gun, and that is why Zim pulled the gun and shot Trayvon. There are no witnesses who say they saw Trayvon trying to reach for Zim's gun.




No duty to retreat. § 776.013(3), Fla. Stat. See Novak v. State 974 So. 2d 520 (Fla. 4th DCA 2008) regarding unlawful activity. There is no duty to retreat where the defendant was not engaged in any unlawful activity other than the crime(s) for which the defendant asserts the justification.
If the defendant [was not engaged in an unlawful activity and] was attacked in any place where [he] [she] had a right to be, [he] [she] had no duty to retreat and had the right to stand [his] [her] ground and meet force with force, including deadly force, if [he] [she] reasonably believed that it was necessary to do so to prevent death or great bodily harm to [himself] [herself] [another] or to prevent the commission of a forcible felony.


If Zim is found to have put Trayvon in fear of injury, then Zim had a duty to retreat.




To prove the crime of Assault, the State must prove the following three elements beyond a reasonable doubt:

1. (Defendant) intentionally and unlawfully threatened, either by word or act, to do violence to (victim).

2. At the time, (defendant) appeared to have the ability to carry out the threat.

3. The act of (defendant) created in the mind of (victim) a well-founded fear that the violence was about to take place.

Lesser Included Offenses

ASSAULT — 784.011
CATEGORY ONE CATEGORY TWO FLA. STAT. INS. NO.
None
Attempt 777.04(1) 5.1






//
 
Last edited:
ric27 said:
Wrong

That's NOT sufficient provocation to warrant a sucker punch in the nose and continue to savagely beat, the individual
Click to expand...

George's best friend.. said that George was just fed up and had anger issues.
 
sharon said:
George's best friend.. said that George was just fed up and had anger issues.
Click to expand...
Now sharon is trying to say she was Zimmerman's best friend.
lol

Well obviously that friendship went south.
 
Sheik Yerbuti said:
If Trayvon's face was concealed, how did Zimmerman identify him as a black individual in his late teens?
Click to expand...
Well gee, lets see, huh?
Supposedly after he noticed Zimmerman observing him he pulled his hood up.
So Zimmerman saw him first without it up. Duh!
 
Excon said:
Now sharon is trying to say she was Zimmerman's best friend.
lol

Well obviously that friendship went south.
Click to expand...

Frank Taaffe said that George was just fed up and had anger issues. GZ was upset about the burglaries... He had no self control, but he did have gun.. And George was also changing medication.. From Van-something because it caused mood swings to Adderral which aggravates OCD.

Trying to shift the blame to Trayvon is simply ridiculous.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom