Another Stellar Day for Gun Owners

< ))) republicans )))

 

Hmmmmmm... An eyewitness says that the man being attacked had "lighter skin". Could it be true that Zimmerman was being attacked and shot Martin in self defense? As I've said all along, let's wait and see:

A resident of the Florida community where George Zimmerman shot Trayvon Martin last year after a confrontation took the stand Friday and described going out to investigate a noise and seeing one person straddling another with and throwing punches thrown down "MMA-style" the person on the ground.​

​

John Good said he was watching TV with his wife when they heard a noise and he went out to investigate, despite his wife warning him not to. At first, he thought a dog might be attacking someone, but as he moved closer, he said he observed what looked like "a tussle" between two people.​

​

"It looked like a tussle," Good said. "I could only see one person. At one point, I yelled out, 'What's going on? Stop it,' I believe," Good said.​

Under questioning by Prosecutor Bernie de la Rionda, Good said one of the combatants was straddling a man lying face up on the pavement, and throwing punches. The testimony appeared to corroborate Zimmerman's claims that he shot the 17-year-old African-American with a legally registered gun in self defense, as he was being pummeled.​

​

"I could tell that the person on the bottom had a lighter skin color," testified Good, who also said the person on the bottom appeared to be wearing "white or red," while the one on top wore dark clothing. Zimmerman identified that day as Hispanic and was wearing a red jacket. That also would corroborate Zimmerman's claims he was on the losing end of a violent confrontation when he fired the fatal shot.​

​

​

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/us/2013/06/28/zimmerman-defense-grills-witness-for-second-day/?test=latestnews#ixzz2XWdiB6mQ​

 

And this was the PROSECUTION'S star witness. Yet somehow I fail to see how it helped the prosecution and seemed to be a star witness for the defense.

 

I noticed today that Zimmerman is left-handed. That's been known for some time, but I never gave it much thought until I saw him writing notes at the trial. During one of his police interviews he demonstrated drawing his weapon with his right hand to shoot Martin. Not a big deal really, from what I understand, but I did find it interesting.

Too bad Martin can't take the stand and claim his own right to "stand his ground" against a larger white/Hispanic (Zimmerman has claimed both at different points in time) who chased him down.

Too bad the kid beat the hell out of the guy too, but he was a kid being harassed by a "creepy cracker", so I don't blame him for teaching the older fella, who apparently studied MMA in a failed effort to be able to sleep better at night, what MMA is about.

Nope, the older fella had a gun, and used it, after chasing down a kid and losing a fistfight against that kid.

No wonder the dude gained a purported 120 pounds in the last year, eating to gain some comfort knowing he murdered a kid after the kid schooled him on MMA, something he likely believed wasn't going to happen...except for the fact that he also brought a gun with him...in case he lost.

Real "winner" you < ))) republicans ))) are supporting. I understand why. You all want to be able to go out, pick a fight with someone, shoot them and claim you were just "standing your ground", like your hero, Zimmerman.

Weeeeeeeaaaaaaak.

 

Pathetic.

 

republicans need a lot of things: guns, ammo, tissue, people to listen to them whine, a circle of jerks to play with, etc.

 

democrats are just pathetic and stupid.

 

It's one thing to defend yourself from an unprovoked attack, and another to provoke an attack, then shoot.

< ))) republicans ))) consistently fail to understand the difference.

 

I think Martin had every right in asking why Zimmerman was following him. I don't believe anyone is disputing a person's right to verbally confront someone they believe is following them (although it may not be the WISEST thing to do).

However, and this hasn't been proven (or disproven) in court, is the possibility that a physical attack was initiated by Martin. IF (and that is a big "IF") Martin attacked Zimmerman, then Zimmerman had every right to defend himself. Would you disagree?

Now, IF Zimmerman acted in self-defense, the question then becomes whether or not deadly force was necessary. The prosecution will then have to convince a jury that Zimmerman didn't feel his life was in danger and overreacted.

 

Not who followed whom, who confronted whom, or even who attacked whom, but they have to PROVE that Zimmerman acted first (and I mean with a physical attack). There is only one witness to that event (that would be Zimmerman, IQless1, in case you missed that). Since I seriously doubt Zimmerman is going to confess, I see no way he can be convicted.

 

It could be possible to convict him based on witness testimony. However, quite to the contrary, the witnesses in the trial so far have described scenes where Martin is the aggressor or, at least, was seen being aggressive at the point in time they saw the incident. Of course, that doesn't preclude the possibility that Zimmerman was the aggressor first, but so far no witness has stated that. Perhaps the prosecution has some witnesses who are going to testify to that effect. We will just have to wait and see.

 

That is what I said. There were no witnesses for the start of the fight. None, except Zimmerman. It may be interesting who wound up on top of whom, but really, the only way to convict is to witness the start. Regardless of who that may have been, there is no witness.

 

Not necessarily. For argument's sake, let's say that Zimmerman started the physical confrontation. Then let's say the tables turned and Martin got the upper hand and began pummeling Zimmerman on the ground. If, while being pummeled by Martin, Zimmerman felt his life to be in danger he could defend himself. Just because someone starts a fight doesn't mean that he gives up the right to self defense during the fight.

Now, I'm not saying that Zimmerman started the physical fight. No one knows for certain who started it (other than Zimmerman himself). My point is that it really doesn't matter who STARTED it. The only thing that matters is if Zimmerman was in fear of his life during the fight.

 

You are missing what I am saying. The way I understand the law, the man who starts the fight DOES give up his right to self defense. The only caveat being that the looser did not escalate the fight beyond its starting weapon(s?). Regardless, with Zimmerman proven to be on the bottom asking for help, I see no way he can be convicted.

 

No, the man who starts the fight does not give up his right to self defense. Otherwise, any old bar fight could escalate into a homicide and a successful defense would be, "Well, he started it". What matters is if the person fears for their life.
Now, you may ask "Well, how can we really know if the person feared for their life?" That can be substantiated if you have corroborating witnesses saying, "The guy was getting the hell beat out of him" or "It looked like the other guy was going to kill him". A myriad of other factors can also prove that the person was in fear for their life.

If Zimmerman was truly in fear for his life (something we don't know yet) then it might be proven that he acted in self defense.

 

Not very often do fisticuffs lead to a death. And according to the way I read these laws, the man who starts the fight may not give up his entire right of self defense, but there does not seen to be much left. Like I said, when the non-starter brings a knife to a fist fight.

Read more: http://www.partisanlines.com/threads/another-stellar-day-for-gun-owners.4297/page-24#ixzz2XoidC7SB​

1998 FLORIDA STATUTES
CHAPTER 776
JUSTIFIABLE USE OF FORCE
776.012 Use of force in defense of person.--A person is justified in the use of force, except deadly force, against another when and to the extent that the person reasonably believes that such conduct is necessary to defend himself or herself or another against such other's imminent use of unlawful force. However, the person is justified in the use of deadly force only if he or she reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the imminent commission of a forcible felony.
History.--s. 13, ch. 74-383; s. 1188, ch. 97-102.

776.031 Use of force in defense of others.--A person is justified in the use of force, except deadly force, against another when and to the extent that the person reasonably believes that such conduct is necessary to prevent or terminate such other's trespass on, or other tortious or criminal interference with, either real property other than a dwelling or personal property, lawfully in his or her possession or in the possession of another who is a member of his or her immediate family or household or of a person whose property he or she has a legal duty to protect. However, the person is justified in the use of deadly force only if he or she reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent the imminent commission of a forcible felony.
History.--s. 13, ch. 74-383; s. 1189, ch. 97-102.

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.​

 

Yep, that's exactly right just as outlined in 776.041 (2) (a) which you've provided above. The liberals who keep parroting "stand your ground, stand your ground" are off-base. First, it needs to be proven that Zimmerman was in fear for his life. If that's proven, then 776.041 (2) (a) would cover him regardless of whether or not he started the physical altercation.

​

​

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.​

 

Well, now we know how Obama can gain republican support. All he needs to do is stalk someone and shoot them when they beat the hell out of him. republicans love that chit.

 

Everyone ready to surrender all your guns next Monday? Obama's comin' for 'em...he's gonna get 'em...don't do anything stupid now, or he'll have to shoot ya...and he's allowed to "stand his ground" too, so be good little ones and behave when he comes-a-knockin' on your door.

 

Contrary to what some members on this forum assumed, George Zimmerman has been proven in a court of law to have acted in self-defense against an aggressive young man who was attempting to kill him. No one should have to lay on the ground while being battered and bloodied or threatened with having their life taken from them.

When it really comes down to it, regardless of one's political leanings, I don't think anyone here would dispute a person's right to defend themselves. Now a jury, who has seen and heard all the evidence, agrees.

I encourage those who disagree with the jury's verdict to refrain from committing violence or hate-based attacks. George Zimmerman has been tried by judge and jury, therefore, justice has been served.