• 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.

Florida Case Law: Accused Must Be Free From Fault

pinqy said:
Trickier. With only one gun, is the use of it justified or not? That's what the defense will have to convince a jury of.
Click to expand...

No, that's the prosecution's job.

The burden is on them on all counts
 
JackFrost said:
Via the American Digest System~



Mixon v. State 1952

MIXON v. STATE*-*April 1, 1952.



The law is clear that one may not provoke a difficulty and having done so act under the necessity produced by the difficulty, then kill his adversary and justify the homicide under the plea of self defense. Zimmerman clearly provoked a difficulty, by forcing Martin to run, then exiting his vehicle. According to Zimmerman, Martin attempted to communicate at least twice with Zimmerman, who failed to state his intentions or identify himself both times, further provoking a difficulty.

The prosecution will make the following argument:

Zimmerman profiled Martin and followed him in his car, causing Martin to run. After clearly attempting to put some distance between himself and the stranger following him, Zimmerman exited his vehicle armed with a gun. Zimmerman assumed Martin had committed or was about to commit a crime and was intent Martin should not get away. Martin was innocent of any wrongdoing, and was just walking home from 7/11. Zimmerman was unjustified in pursuing Martin and under the circumstances his conduct was threatening. This, the prosecution will argue, was sufficient to "initially provoke" the struggle, no matter who struck the first blow.

There is no credible evidence that Zimmerman either tried to escape from Martin or that he withdrew and clearly indicated his intent to withdraw from the altercation.

776.041 - - 2011 Florida Statutes - The Florida Senate
Click to expand...

Excellent thread. I read through the posts to see if anyone posted any links to evidence to contradict your summary of the law and none were able to. you've completely dominated the issue. Congrats.
 
ric27 said:
No, that's the prosecution's job.

The burden is on them on all counts
Click to expand...

Not quite. The burden of proof on the prosecution is to show that Zimmerman unlawfully killed Martin. The defense has the burden of showing that it was self-defense.
 
pinqy said:
Not quite. The burden of proof on the prosecution is to show that Zimmerman unlawfully killed Martin. The defense has the burden of showing that it was self-defense.
Click to expand...

Pay attention.....on 2 things *immunity hearing and self defense

On, the immunity hearing, the burden is on the defendant *Z* to prove by a preponderance of evidence. The hearing is not a defense. It just provides immunity from criminal charges and if Z does not meet the burden...NP nothing is lost

At trial....immunity can still be debated along with self defense. The state now has the burden to prove Z's guilt beyond reasonable doubt plus disprove Z's claim of self defense
 
pinqy said:
I wasn't making an argument, I was stating my understanding of the legal view and precedent. If you believe my understanding is faulty, you're free to correct me and show me any cases or laws that support your view.
Click to expand...
You placing forth what you believe is correct is you putting forth an augment.

So, as stated; It is your argument that fails to convince, as it is wrong, and dismissed as being so.
 
Excon said:
pinqy said:
Not quite. The burden of proof on the prosecution is to show that Zimmerman unlawfully killed Martin. The defense has the burden of showing that it was self-defense.
Click to expand...
You placing forth what you believe is correct is you putting forth an augment.

So, as stated; It is your argument that fails to convince, as it is wrong, and dismissed as being so.
Click to expand...
Dang it. I hate when that happens.
iLOL
:doh

The word should be "argument".
Not "augment".
:doh
 
Stardog said:
Excellent thread. I read through the posts to see if anyone posted any links to evidence to contradict your summary of the law and none were able to. you've completely dominated the issue. Congrats.
Click to expand...
iLOL
:doh
No one needed to rebut his plagiarism, as the original author was already rebutted.
As it was rebutted here also, with as much force as his plagiarism needs.
Had you bothered to read the posts like you say you did, you would have discovered this on your own.

joko104 said:
The case you cite is irrelevant because in it the finding was that the deceased had not attacked the accused at the time of the shooting. The physical injuries to Zimmerman show that he was.
Click to expand...

Excon said:
What you don't seem to understand, is that the information that you plagiarized, does not apply, as the prosecutor can not argue that. It is not controlling authority here. And none of the circumstances involved apply to this case.
You really should have researched what you plagiarized before posting it as I previously suggested.
You would have realized it isn't applicable.

Besides, the law has included in it exception when it is possible to use deadly force even if you are the aggressor.
This is why the prosecutors can not argue such, as they would be arguing the law is wrong.
You got nothing here.
Click to expand...

You should have also followed the advice given to JackFrost to research what was said. You would then understand that it didn't apply.






As rebutted at the site of original publishing.

FlaEMT May 18, 2012 at 9:35 pm

In Vila v State of Florida, the point you're missing is that the defendant was convicted of burglary, a crime specifically listed by Florida statute FS776.08 as a "forcible felony". Under FS776.041(1), anyone guilty of a forcible felony is precluded from claiming self defense regardless of the exceptions listed in FS776.041(2). Since there have yet to be any charges, let alone a conviction for a forcible felony against Zimmerman, the precedent would not apply here.

In Johnson v. State, The question was to whether FS776.041 should have been included in jury instructions. The instructions as given during the trial included FS776.041(2)(a), the exception you claim can't apply due to Johnson. The appellate court upheld the instructions as given, including the section starting "(unless)Such force is so great. . ." This would affirm, rather that override the exception to "use of Force by Aggressor".

As stated by others here, the older precedents would also not apply, since they were made under different statutes than apply now.
Click to expand...
All which is verifiable had you bothered to check.
 
Excon said:
iLOL
:doh
No one needed to rebut his plagiarism, as the original author was already rebutted.
As it was rebutted here also, with as much force as his plagiarism needs.
Had you bothered to read the posts like you say you did, you would have discovered this on your own.
Click to expand...

Anyone with the most basic knowledge of law knows that court records are public domain and thus can't be plagerized. The very fact you don't understand this distinction proves you are not qualified to comment on the law. never mind the fact you said Z would never be arrested, never be charged, would be granted immunity, and never be held to trial. In fact, I'm at a loss at anything you've gotten correct in over a year. Seems like an awful waste of time to me.
 
Stardog said:
Anyone with the most basic knowledge of law knows that court records are public domain and thus can't be plagerized. The very fact you don't understand this distinction proves you are not qualified to comment on the law. never mind the fact you said Z would never be arrested, never be charged, would be granted immunity, and never be held to trial. In fact, I'm at a loss at anything you've gotten correct in over a year. Seems like an awful waste of time to me.
Click to expand...
:doh
Of course ignoring the fact thast it had been rebutted. Figures.
:doh
iLOL
That fact that you do not understand that he plagiarized the Professor's specific words, speaks volumes as to your qualification to speak about anything.
iLOL
:lamo :lamo :lamo


Which in all reality, is hard to miss. So your post just speaks as to why you are here also.
 
Excon said:
:doh
Of course ignoring the fact thast it had been rebutted. Figures.
:doh
iLOL
That fact that you do not understand that he plagiarized the Professor's specific words, speaks volumes as to your qualification to speak about anything.
iLOL



Which in all reality, is hard to miss. So your post just speaks as to why you are here also.
Click to expand...

Tell us again how Z will never be arrested Perry Mason!

:lamo :lamo :lamo
 
Stardog said:
Tell us again how Z will never be arrested Perry Mason!
Click to expand...
Way to deflect from being wrong.

What are you speaking about this time?
 
It sad how angry and defensive people get when they lose to me.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom