Do you think Zimmerman will be convicted of murder?

It would be interesting to visit the mother country
and see with a thousand dollars or two how long it would take to
pick up a firearm, in firearms free England.

My guess would be two hours..................

Banning/outlawing something only affects the price not the available of the item for the right price.

We don't need to defeat the government,
we have something called elections over here, perhaps you should try it.

It would be interesting to visit the mother country and see with a thousands dollars or two how long it would take to picked up a firearm in firearms free England.

My guess would be two hours..................

Banning/outlawing something only affect the price not the available of the item for the right price.

guns are addictive?

May 18, 2012
Trayvon Martin Case: Does Zimmerman’s Self Defense Claim Depend on Who Started the Fight?

By DAN ABRAMS, ABC News Legal Consultant

Hundreds of pages of documents released yesterday in the Trayvon Martin case shed new light on a number of important aspects of the investigation . Maybe most importantly, it seems clear that George Zimmerman took a beating. Probably a pretty bad one. Bloody lacerations on his head, grass stains on his back, a “swollen” or “broken” nose and more than one witness claiming to have seen what must have been Martin on top of Zimmerman during the altercation, all support Zimmerman’s longstanding claim. But it is also pretty clear from the other evidence we know of — the 911 call where Zimmerman ignores instructions not to follow Martin, and the account of Martin’s friend who was on the phone with him immediately before the incident- that Zimmerman likely followed Martin and initiated whatever altercation eventually ensued. While these facts remain in dispute, if Martin was effectively defending himself from Zimmerman, then started punching out Zimmerman, can Zimmerman still claim he killed Martin in self defense under Florida’s stand your ground law? Maybe.

I started thinking about this more in depth last night after receiving an email from a well respected attorney who suggested that I misstated an aspect of the law during a television appearance. In particular, he believed I was wrong to say that “under Florida Law you can’t start a fight, start losing a fight and then claim you were standing your ground.”

The Florida Stand your Ground Law passed in 2005 reads as follows:

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 or herself or another or to prevent the commission of a forcible felony.

So the law is pretty clear that if Zimmerman was attacked by Martin, he could use deadly force “if he. . . reasonably believes it is necessary to do so to prevent death or great bodily harm to himself.” Who was the aggressor becomes a, and probably the, crucial legal question. But its not the only question. While the law also states that the defense “is not available to a person who initially provokes the use of force against himself,” there are 2 exceptions. First, if:

“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.”

There is nothing yet to suggest that Zimmerman will claim he tried to withdraw but since he was the only witness to the events just preceding the altercation, it could still become an issue. But the second exception is far more likely to be relevant. The law also states that the initial aggressor is permitted to invoke the law and claim self defense if in response to his own aggression,

“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.”

So in theory this could mean that Zimmerman chases down Martin, Martin defends himself and starts pummeling Zimmerman and Zimmerman could still claim he was “standing his ground” because he now feared for his life. Essentially Wild West rules would apply, whoever shoots best and last wins. When asked about this potential issue, the law’s sponsor Florida Rep. Dennis Baxley said, “That scenario was never discussed.”

I think its beyond a leap to suggest that “losing a fight” as I described it is akin to exhausting “every reasonable means to escape” and some in the legal community have argued that provoking the incident immediately eliminates any opportunity to invoke the defense. In particular, I think the defense would have trouble arguing that after getting your butt kicked by someone you chased down and provoked, that you could then argue that you were in any way shape or form “reasonable” in your effort to escape. But there is at least an argument, and probably more than one, that Zimmerman could make to try to invoke the Stand Your Ground Law even if he were to concede (or it was proven) that he was the aggressor. So if I have more time maybe I should say “under Florida law you can’t start a fight, then start losing a fight, and then, without reasonably trying to escape first, shoot and kill someone?”

Regardless, this law is incredibly protective of the defendant and for everyone who has pointed fingers of blame at the police and prosecutors in connection with this case, now that we know a lot more about the evidence, I think any fingers would have been far more accurately pointed at the Florida legislature.
http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/headlines/2012/05/trayvon-martin-case-does-zimmermans-self-defense-claim-depend-on-who-started-the-fight/

Bill, David et al prefer to listen to the music in their heads
rather than the facts that show the homicide rate in America
is considerably higher than that over here.

Quote:

May 18, 2012
Trayvon Martin Case: Does Zimmerman’s Self Defense Claim Depend on Who Started the Fight?

guns are addictive?

Well, BillRM has told us he can't stop at owning just one. He's got a mini-arsenal in his home.

And, judging from their comments, David and BillRM would feel positively nakked without one.

The only problem I see with this article is that Zimmerman doesn't have any marks on his hands. He didn't punch Martin from what we can tell. The only marks on him appear to be from Martin punching him, then slamming his head against the ground. If this is the case how can they try to claim that Zimmerman might have started the fight. Verbally confronting someone is not grounds for getting beat up.

The only problem I see with this article is that Zimmerman doesn't have any marks on his hands. He didn't punch Martin from what we can tell.

If this is the case how can they try to claim that Zimmerman might have started the fight

We also now know that there were drugs in Trayvon's system. Seems he might have been smoking some weed sometime before the altercation.

http://www.nydailynews.com/opinion/drop-george-zimmerman-murder-charge-article-1.1080161

New York Daily News:

Quote:

Drop George Zimmerman’s murder charge
New evidence suggests Trayvon Martin's killer acted in self-defense

Quote:

Alan Dershowitz again:

A medical report by George Zimmerman’s doctor has disclosed that Zimmerman had a fractured nose, two black eyes, two lacerations on the back of his head and a back injury on the day after the fatal shooting. If this evidence turns out to be valid, the prosecutor will have no choice but to drop the second-degree murder charge against Zimmerman — if she wants to act ethically, lawfully and professionally.

There is, of course, no assurance that the special prosecutor handling the case, State Attorney Angela Corey, will do the right thing. Because until now, her actions have been anything but ethical, lawful and professional.

She was aware when she submitted an affidavit that it did not contain the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth. She deliberately withheld evidence that supported Zimmerman’s claim of self-defense. The New York Times has reported that the police had “a full face picture” of Zimmerman, before paramedics treated him, that showed “a bloodied nose.” The prosecutor also had photographic evidence of bruises to the back of his head.

But none of this was included in any affidavit.

Now there is much more extensive medical evidence that would tend to support Zimmerman’s version of events. This version, if true, would establish self-defense even if Zimmerman had improperly followed, harassed and provoked Martin.

A defendant, under Florida law, loses his “stand your ground” defense if he provoked the encounter — but he retains traditional self-defense if he reasonably believed his life was in danger and his only recourse was to employ deadly force.

Thus, if Zimmerman verbally provoked Martin, but Martin then got on top of Zimmerman and banged his head into the ground, broke his nose, bloodied his eyes and persisted in attacking Zimmerman — and if Zimmerman couldn’t protect himself from further attack except by shooting Martin — he would have the right to do that. (The prosecution has already admitted that it has no evidence that Zimmerman started the actual fight.)

This is a fact-specific case, in which much turns on what the jury believes beyond a reasonable doubt. It must resolve all such doubts in favor of the defendant, because our system of justice insists that it is better for 10 guilty defendants to go free than for even one innocent to be wrongfully convicted.

You wouldn’t know that from listening to Corey, who announced that her jobs was “to do justice for Trayvon Martin” — not for George Zimmerman.

As many see it, her additional job is to prevent riots of the sort that followed the acquittal of the policemen who beat Rodney King.

Indeed, Mansfield Frazier, a columnist for the Daily Beast, has suggested that it is the responsibility of the legal system to “avert a large scale racial calamity.” He has urged Zimmerman’s defense lawyer to become a “savior” by brokering a deal to plead his client guilty to a crime that “has him back on the streets within this decade.”

But it is not the role of a defense lawyer to save the world or the country. His job — his only job — is to get the best result for his client, by all legal and ethical means.

Listen to the way a famous British barrister put it in 1820:

“An advocate, by the sacred duty which he owes his client, knows, in the discharge of that office, but one person in the world, that client and none other . . . Nay, separating even the duties of a patriot from those of an advocate, and casting them, if need be, to the wind, he must go on reckless of the consequences, if his fate it should unhappily be, to involve his country in confusion for his client’s protection.”

The prosecutor’s job is far broader: to do justice to the defendant as well as the alleged victim. As the Supreme Court has said: “The government wins . . . when justice is done.”

Zimmerman’s lawyer is doing his job. It’s about time for the prosecutor to start doing hers.

Dershowitz, a defense attorney, is a professor at Harvard Law School.



Read more: http://www.nydailynews.com/opinion/drop-george-zimmerman-murder-charge-article-1.1080161#ixzz1vDtUEdzP

As many see it, her additional job is to prevent riots of the sort that followed the acquittal of the policemen who beat Rodney King.

Indeed, Mansfield Frazier, a columnist for the Daily Beast, has suggested that it is the responsibility of the legal system to “avert a large scale racial calamity.” He has urged Zimmerman’s defense lawyer to become a “savior” by brokering a deal to plead his client guilty to a crime that “has him back on the streets within this decade.”