July 16, 201313 yr I think I asked something similar recently. Why couldn't TM say he was defending himself? He feared for his life and defended himself. Not guilty. There would be two areas that would make the defense plea difficult for TM. Had GZ never pulled the gun, at no point was TM's life in danger. The law and any jury would not accept that someone following you puts you life at risk (assuming GZ had not pulled the gun yet) especially when the person following you is a middle aged guy who is a little over weight and you are a young 17 year old who could out run him any day of the week. The second area that would make a claim of self defense difficult is that the person you are beating is incapacitated before the beating gets to the point of being life threatening. So I think the jury would say if you are fighting with someone, once you get them to the point where they physically are no match for you, they are no longer a threat to you and you cannot continue to use force. So in that senario, the verdict would be Guilty. Edited July 16, 201313 yr by Bert
July 16, 201313 yr There would be two areas that would make the defense plea difficult for TM. Had GZ never pulled the gun, at no point was TM's life in danger. The law and any jury would not accept that someone following you puts you life at risk (assuming GZ had not pulled the gun yet) especially when the person following you is a middle aged guy who is a little over weight and you are a young 17 year old who could out run him any day of the week. The second area that would make a claim of self defense difficult is that the person you are beating is incapacitated before the beating gets to the point of being life threatening. So I think the jury would say if you are fighting with someone, once you get them to the point where they phusically are no match for you, they are no longer a threat to you and you cannot continue to use force. So in that senario, the verdict would be Guilty. Im pretty sure you can beat someone to death with your fist pretty easily. So yes when someone is following you, your life could be in danger.
July 16, 201313 yr Im pretty sure you can beat someone to death with your fist pretty easily. So yes when someone is following you, your life could be in danger. Beating someone to death with your fists can be done pretty easily? I am a pretty big guy, 6'6'' and about 280 and while I could probably do it to someone GZ's size, it would take a heck of alot out of me to beat someone without a weapon to the point of killing them. It would take alot of blows to the head/skull and I might break fingers in the process. Your life could be in danger but in no way would a jury give you a pass for killing the person when you don't atleast make an attempt to flee especially when he is probably twice your age and considerably heavier than you if you do get into an altercation, once you have beaten your follower to the point he is not physically capable of hurting you, the threat is gone and you not longer can claim self defense if you keep beating him till he dies. There is no question in my mind, had GZ never been able to draw his gun while TZ was on top if him and TZ continued beating him till death that TZ would not be able to argue that his life was in danger at any point.
July 16, 201313 yr There would be two areas that would make the defense plea difficult for TM. Had GZ never pulled the gun, at no point was TM's life in danger. The law and any jury would not accept that someone following you puts you life at risk (assuming GZ had not pulled the gun yet) especially when the person following you is a middle aged guy who is a little over weight and you are a young 17 year old who could out run him any day of the week. The second area that would make a claim of self defense difficult is that the person you are beating is incapacitated before the beating gets to the point of being life threatening. So I think the jury would say if you are fighting with someone, once you get them to the point where they physically are no match for you, they are no longer a threat to you and you cannot continue to use force. So in that senario, the verdict would be Guilty. If GZ was incapacitated, how did he fire his weapon? Also, with one of the two dead, we'd be in the same situation we are now. We'd only have the word of the living individual to go by. TM might say that he saw the gun during the altercation. (And he might have. We only have GZ's word to go on here.) For sake of debate, let's say that things happened as GZ said. TM starts the fight. Is there any point in the fight that TM would be justified in killing GZ?
July 16, 201313 yr If GZ was incapacitated, how did he fire his weapon? Also, with one of the two dead, we'd be in the same situation we are now. We'd only have the word of the living individual to go by. TM might say that he saw the gun during the altercation. (And he might have. We only have GZ's word to go on here.) Exactly right which is why I said he'd be in the same situation - claiming self-defense.
July 17, 201313 yr [ATTACH=CONFIG]40426[/ATTACH] Well then maybe you should be an advocate for the young man and tell his story or the injustice if the black male who shot him was arrested, tried in court and then set free.
July 17, 201313 yr 4 of the 5 remaining jurors issued a statement tonight saying that juror B37 does not speak for them.
July 17, 201313 yr Really glad for the little girl's sake that those 2 teen age boys had the courage and felt the civic responsibility to follow someone they thought may have kidnapped the little girl. Big kudos to the boys. In a day and age when more and more people just don't want to get involved, these two teenage boys stepped up and did the right thing. Awesome story. Heroes in every sense of the world. No doubt they saved that little girl's life.
July 17, 201313 yr [ATTACH=CONFIG]40426[/ATTACH] NAACP leaders respond to Marley Lion/Trayvon Martin comparison | The Battery Nice background stuff on the Marley Lion story.
July 17, 201313 yr NAACP leaders respond to Marley Lion/Trayvon Martin comparison | The Battery Nice background stuff on the Marley Lion story. One is a clear cut murder with video evidence. The other isn't. Not a real good comparison IMO.
July 17, 201313 yr DOJ actively fishing for a federal case. George Zimmerman: DOJ solicits help from civil rights leaders in Zimmerman investigation - OrlandoSentinel.com "Arnwine said the call was convened at about 3:30 p.m. by Tom Perez, Assistant Attorney General for the Civil Rights Division of the United States Department of Justice, and included representatives from the FBI, and several federal prosecutors, she said. DOJ officials also said they would open a public email address so people could send in tips on the case. That email address, which is now in operation, is [email protected]." Interesting image on this:
July 17, 201313 yr If GZ was incapacitated, how did he fire his weapon? Where did I say GZ was incapacitated? Someone mentioned that if TM were to have killed GZ, he would be not guilty which I did not believe would be the case. Claiming self defense would be difficult when you kill somone with your bare hands. When you shoot your attacker, incapacitating him and delivering the lethal blow can happen and the same time, when you fire the gun. Beating someone is different, when you beat someone to death with your fists, there are several blows to the head and the body the seperate the aggressor from being incapacitated and receiving a life threatening blow. So the law would say, once you have your attacker beat up to the degree he cannot fight back, your life is no longer threatened and self defense is no longer in the cards. Assuming the person giving the beating, stops the beating, he should not be charged with Assault and Battery since he was attacked. Also, with one of the two dead, we'd be in the same situation we are now. We'd only have the word of the living individual to go by. TM might say that he saw the gun during the altercation. (And he might have. We only have GZ's word to go on here.)? If someone is carrying a gun but has not pulled it yet, would the law say your life is threatened? My guess is no, if someone has a gun and draws it and points it at me, I have a right to use lethal force. Just because someone is following me and has a gun, my guess is the law say your life was not threatened with the gun holstered. For sake of debate, let's say that things happened as GZ said. TM starts the fight. Is there any point in the fight that TM would be justified in killing GZ? Historically the person who throws the first punch has a difficult time claiming self defense especially if GZ was walking back to his car with his back to TM (again, we are taking things as GZ said).
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.