Is Manslaughter Likely for Zimmerman?

[Josie]

He had the right to defend himself and meet force with force, not lethal force.

He had the right to defend himself in any way if he feared great bodily harm. That's the law.

 

[Sheik Yerbuti]

Why do you think that?

I believe it's a possibility. I don't believe either way that it did or did not happen that way. No one knows except for Zimmerman. I see no motive for Trayvon to go off on Zimmerman like that given he was just heading back to Brandy's home after going to 7-11 and minding his own business until Zimmerman began tailing him through the neighborhood.

It also makes sense that it happened that way if Jeantel is telling the truth when she says she heard Trayvon saying, "get off, get off."

 

[Sheik Yerbuti]

He had the right to defend himself in any way if he feared great bodily harm. That's the law.

It has to be a "reasonable belief." I personally don't believe it was reasonable to believe he was in such grave danger.

 

[year2late]

What legal obligation or imagined responsibility does GZ have to follow every kid he sees walking in the rain when he isn't even on duty?
That mop wipes both ways.

I have said this before. When is this ok. We try to teach our kids as stranger danger, and hope the lessons get retained as they grow into their teen years and are allowed more freedoms.....but what are we saying when we say it is not only acceptable, but can be considered civic duty to follow a kid walking alone in the dark - not only while in a car...but to get out and follow him on foot?

And gets compounded by what someone perceives as being suspicious.

Walking in the rain looking about?

Sounds like a lot of teens.

Couldn't Trayvon just talking on his cell phone account for the way he looked? I watch dozens of people go by my house while talking on their cells - they look like they are talking to themselves.:lol: At least if they are not handsfree you know they are talking to someone other than themselves.

How do people look when they are walking around talking on their hands free phones. They look like they either need drugs (psych meds) or they are on drugs.:2razz:

 

[Oceandan]

I didn't ask about his rights . I asked : What legal obligation or imagined responsibility does GZ have to follow every kid he sees walking in the rain when he isn't even on duty?
I believe his obligation is zero there too.
But since he took the initiative he was under an implied moral obligation to at least let the kid know who he was and what he was doing.

LOL Implied moral obligation???? Really???? Ahhhh the don't kick the guy in the nads in a fistfight rule. Yeah we should base our entire judicial system on what people "should" do. Gotcha!!

 

[Oceandan]

He had the right to defend himself and meet force with force, not lethal force.

Your Honor, proof the author of this post has ZERO knowledge of the law.

We rest.

 

[Sheik Yerbuti]

Your Honor, proof the author of this post has ZERO knowledge of the law.

We rest.

Good thing for Zimmerman, you're not his attorney.

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​

As far as the rest of that section about being justified to resort to deadly force; as I just posted, I don't believe his fear of grave danger was reasonable.

 

[Buck Ewer]

The principle of Innocence refers to the notion that a person who initiates a conflict should not later be permitted to justify his use of force as self defense. It is this principle that is captured in Florida statute 776.041. :
Title XLVI. Crimes.

Chapter 776: JUSTIFIABLE USE OF FORCE

776.041 Use of force by aggressor.—

The justification described in the preceding sections of this chapter is not available to a person who:

(1) Is attempting to commit, committing, or escaping after the commission of, a forcible felony; or

(2) Initially provokes the use of force against himself or herself, unless:

(a) Such force is so great that the person reasonably believes that he or she is in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm and that he or she has exhausted every reasonable means to escape such danger other than the use of force which is likely to cause death or great bodily harm to the assailant; or

(b) In good faith, the person withdraws from physical contact with the assailant and indicates clearly to the assailant that he or she desires to withdraw and terminate the use of force, but the assailant continues or resumes the use of force.

Basically the law states that if you are the initial aggressor in any confrontation the right of self defense is no longer available to you.
You can't provoke a fight and then claim self defense when you shoot the guy you provoked.

 

[Lutherf]

I would formally like to change my mind on this question. I now believe that Zimmerman will be judged guilty.

I'm pretty sure that tomorrow the jury will be instructed to disregard Donnely's testimony and that of the forensic expert. I suspect that West will also be dismissed for his outburst. The result will be a HUGE swing in jury opinion for the state.

 

[ttwtt78640]

Good thing for Zimmerman, you're not his attorney.

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​

As far as the rest of that section about being justified to resort to deadly force; as I just posted, I don't believe his fear of grave danger was reasonable.

I do believe that assault/battery (kidnappiing?) is a forcible felony. When your nose has been broken, you are pinned to the ground, screaming for help and being pounded that is likely to make you feel like a victim of a forcible felony, even if the situation is not absolutely placing you "close to death or great bodily harm".

 

[Sheik Yerbuti]

I do believe that assault/battery (kidnappiing?) is a forcible felony. When your nose has been broken, you are pinned to the ground, screaming for help and being pounded that is likely to make you feel like a victim of a forcible felony, even if the situation is not absolutely placing you "close to death or great bodily harm".

I don't believe it was a forcible felony. I believe it was self defense.

 

[ric27]

Cops use the "reached into his pocket for an unknown item" all the time to justify lethal police action against a suspect. It has even become known as suicide by police.
Get a cop to suspect you and on confrontation reach into an inside pocket. See how long it takes to be shot.
Trayvon didn't have a gun so he reacted with the only thing he had ... his bare hands.

The 4 likes....it figures...lol

In your distorted view, you somehow equate M as being a *police officer*

 

[FederalRepublic]

It's all over for the prosecution now. A black lady said she heard Zimmerman's voice screaming for help on the tape.

 

[Sheik Yerbuti]

It's all over for the prosecution now. A black lady said she heard Zimmerman's voice screaming for help on the tape.

or ....... the jury sees through the defense's cheesy ploy.

 

[Jon Slice]

The principle of Innocence refers to the notion that a person who initiates a conflict should not later be permitted to justify his use of force as self defense. It is this principle that is captured in Florida statute 776.041. :
Title XLVI. Crimes.

Chapter 776: JUSTIFIABLE USE OF FORCE

776.041 Use of force by aggressor.—

The justification described in the preceding sections of this chapter is not available to a person who:

(1) Is attempting to commit, committing, or escaping after the commission of, a forcible felony; or

(2) Initially provokes the use of force against himself or herself, unless:

(a) Such force is so great that the person reasonably believes that he or she is in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm and that he or she has exhausted every reasonable means to escape such danger other than the use of force which is likely to cause death or great bodily harm to the assailant; or

(b) In good faith, the person withdraws from physical contact with the assailant and indicates clearly to the assailant that he or she desires to withdraw and terminate the use of force, but the assailant continues or resumes the use of force.

Basically the law states that if you are the initial aggressor in any confrontation the right of self defense is no longer available to you.
You can't provoke a fight and then claim self defense when you shoot the guy you provoked.

That's not what it says. 776 states that if you do initiate a fight you only have the right to use deadly force if you have exhausted all other resources such as stating that you withdraw from combat and the other party still continues with their assault that is likely to cause death or great bodily harm.

 

[Buck Ewer]

The 4 likes....it figures...lol

In your distorted view, you somehow equate M as being a *police officer*

He was playing at being one. Reminds me of Barney Fife.:lamo

 

[Buck Ewer]

It's all over for the prosecution now. A black lady said she heard Zimmerman's voice screaming for help on the tape.

A neighbor who spoke with Zimmerman a few times. The defense team is making this a joke on themselves.
The fact that she is black is a transparent cynical tactic that anyone can see through.

 

[Jon Slice]

I do believe that assault/battery (kidnappiing?) is a forcible felony. When your nose has been broken, you are pinned to the ground, screaming for help and being pounded that is likely to make you feel like a victim of a forcible felony, even if the situation is not absolutely placing you "close to death or great bodily harm".

It would be false imprisonment. Kidnapping requires the victim be transported. False imprisonment requires a person be held against their will.


By the way, I do walk the thin blue line. Just fyi.

 

[What if...?]

If he did go for his gun, Martin had every right to jump him and defend himself. The question is..... when is GZ allowed to defend himself?

After he stops trying to get the gun.

But that's hard for him to do, now that he's gotten himself into this situation. As it now leaves him vulnerable to this guy.

A trainwreck that left the station when he got out of his truck.

 

[What if...?]

The principle of Innocence refers to the notion that a person who initiates a conflict should not later be permitted to justify his use of force as self defense. It is this principle that is captured in Florida statute 776.041. :
Title XLVI. Crimes.

Chapter 776: JUSTIFIABLE USE OF FORCE

776.041 Use of force by aggressor.—

The justification described in the preceding sections of this chapter is not available to a person who:

(1) Is attempting to commit, committing, or escaping after the commission of, a forcible felony; or

(2) Initially provokes the use of force against himself or herself, unless:

(a) Such force is so great that the person reasonably believes that he or she is in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm and that he or she has exhausted every reasonable means to escape such danger other than the use of force which is likely to cause death or great bodily harm to the assailant; or

(b) In good faith, the person withdraws from physical contact with the assailant and indicates clearly to the assailant that he or she desires to withdraw and terminate the use of force, but the assailant continues or resumes the use of force.

Basically the law states that if you are the initial aggressor in any confrontation the right of self defense is no longer available to you.
You can't provoke a fight and then claim self defense when you shoot the guy you provoked.

No, you can regain your "innocence" by attempting to withdraw in good faith.

 

[FederalRepublic]

or ....... the jury sees through the defense's cheesy ploy.

The prosecution's case looks like one giant cheesy ploy.

 

[Buck Ewer]

No, you can regain your "innocence" by attempting to withdraw in good faith.

Yes but Zimmy never tried that.

 

[sharon]

I'm sure he asked it just as sweet and innocently as you imagine he did sharon.

What was TM's obligation to speak sweetly to a grubby looking guy who had been following him first in a car and then on foot????

 

[sharon]

It's all over for the prosecution now. A black lady said she heard Zimmerman's voice screaming for help on the tape.

That's not what she said... She didn't say it was George.. She said it was a "light" voice.

 

[spanky]

:lol: :doh "You gotta problem?" ... "You do now!" - such freindly non-threatening words, and followed by a punch no less. :roll:

Well, according to Zimm...