This Person is a Member of the US House of Representatives

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

He was beaten up. It was more than reasonable for him to fear for his safety.

I don't dissagree - but Martin was unarmed and it is by no means clear that he was justified in using lethal force.

In particular, did Zimmerman have defensive wounds on his hands and arms - if not that means Martin pumelled him, Zimmerman took it and then shot him once he stopped.

The reason I say that is that I would think if Zimmerman shot Martin while he was being beaten he would have had to struggle to pull the weapon and must therefore have had defensive wounds which reflect that.

Unless, of course, he approached with the weapon drawn - in which case Martin would have been justified beating him to death, given that Zimmerman was presenting the threat of lethal force.

[rvg]

I don't dissagree - but Martin was unarmed and it is by no means clear that he was justified in using lethal force.

Sure it is. If someone tries to beat me up while I'm packing heat, they deserve to die purely because they're so damn stupid. I'll be weeding out the gene pool.

In particular, did Zimmerman have defensive wounds on his hands and arms - if not that means Martin pumelled him, Zimmerman took it and then shot him once he stopped.

That's what you think.

...in which case Martin would have been justified beating him to death, given that Zimmerman was presenting the threat of lethal force.

Wait a second...so it's okay for Martin to kill Zimmerman, but not vice versa merely because of the method of killing? I don't think you have a problem with Zimmerman, I think you have a problem with guns.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Sure it is. If someone tries to beat me up while I'm packing heat, they deserve to die purely because they're so damn stupid. I'll be weeding out the gene pool.

That depends on the context, and why they hit you, whether you were open carrying or not.

Aside from which - Martin did not deserve to die even for committing Common Assault and Battery.

I find you attitude distasteful in this regard.

That's what you think.

I know a bit about having the crap beaten out of me , and I know about guns. Zimmerman presumably had it inside his jacket with the safety on, or he was brandishing it. On the one hand, I find it hard to believe he was able to reach inside his jacket and disengage the safety while being punched in the face; on the other if he had already drawn he was presenting a lethal threat.

Wait a second...so it's okay for Martin to kill Zimmerman, but not vice versa merely because of the method of killing? I don't think you have a problem with Zimmerman, I think you have a problem with guns.

In all instances a handgun presents a lethal threat. If Zimmerman was brandishing the gun at Martin he was threatening to use lethal force. If Martin believed he was about to be shot then beating Zimmerman until he stopped moving would be legally justified.

Conversely, Martin had no weapon.

[rvg]

That depends on the context, and why they hit you, whether you were open carrying or not.

Not to me. Bang. I'm not about to depend on the benevolence of some hoodlum who found it fitting to start a brawl. Bang.

Aside from which - Martin did not deserve to die even for committing Common Assault and Battery.

In your opinion, perhaps not. It wasn't your call though.

I find you attitude distasteful in this regard.

That's quite alright.

I know a bit about having the crap beaten out of me , and I know about guns. Zimmerman presumably had it inside his jacket with the safety on, or he was brandishing it. On the one hand, I find it hard to believe he was able to reach inside his jacket and disengage the safety while being punched in the face; on the other if he had already drawn he was presenting a lethal threat.

Why, he couldn't have taken a few steps backwards to put some distance between himself and Martin to safely pull out a gun?

In all instances a handgun presents a lethal threat. If Zimmerman was brandishing the gun at Martin he was threatening to use lethal force. If Martin believed he was about to be shot then beating Zimmerman until he stopped moving would be legally justified. Conversely, Martin had no weapon.

Fists can also be lethal. That's no excuse.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Why, he couldn't have taken a few steps backwards to put some distance between himself and Martin to safely pull out a gun?

Then he's not in mortal danger, is he?

I don't have a problem with guns per se, I have a problem with people like you being allowed to have them.

A young man is dead because another man had a gun. Zimmerman himself said Martin went for his weapon before he shot him - that implies Zimmerman had it drawn.

Why would Martin attack Zimmerman - he'd been out for munchies.

Zimmerman was following him, and he had a gun - or are we disputing what the accused himself said, now?

[Whacker]

Then he's not in mortal danger, is he?

I don't have a problem with guns per se, I have a problem with people like you being allowed to have them.

A young man is dead because another man had a gun. Zimmerman himself said Martin went for his weapon before he shot him - that implies Zimmerman had it drawn.

Why would Martin attack Zimmerman - he'd been out for munchies.

Zimmerman was following him, and he had a gun - or are we disputing what the accused himself said, now?

You are an extremely naive person PVC. Almost as much as your are opinionated and judgmental. You've made more assumptions about what happened during the altercation that I can keep track of. Putting a few feet between someone else and yourself doesn't remotely mean the attack has ceased, or that mortal danger has passed.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

You are an extremely naive person PVC. Almost as much as your are opinionated and judgmental. You've made more assumptions about what happened during the altercation that I can keep track of. Putting a few feet between someone else and yourself doesn't remotely mean the attack has ceased, or that mortal danger has passed.

I just love how you take every oppertunity to insult me.

You think I'm naive?

No - Martin could have beaten Zimmerman to death, but it was less likely than Martin being shot and killed. There are a plethora of problems with Zimmerman's story, but the biggest one is that he seems to claim that he followed Martin and then Martin spontaneously attacked him.

That doesn't add up.

As yet no convincing motive for Martin attacking Zimmerman has been brought forward other than Zimmerman starting an altercation and then Martin overreacting (or not, depending on where the gun was).

Being followed in the dark is creepy and that appears to have been what Zimmerman did, he followed Martin.

So far as I can see Zimmerman is guilty of murder unless he can prove that Martin represented a credible threat to his life, at the very least he is guilty of whatever you guys call voluntary manslaughter.

Just because Martin was still a threat does not mean Zimmerman's life was in immidiate danger - and the Police were already on their way by this point.

This case stinks - and it still looks the same as it ever did, there was a fight and one guy had a gun so the other guy went to the morgue.

[Xiahou]

What you actually have to prove though is that Zimmerman was in fear of his life.

The burden is on the prosecution, not the defense. They would have to prove he was not in fear of his life.

Who said anything about "murder"?

.....that's what Zimmerman has been charged with- second degree murder.

[rvg]

Then he's not in mortal danger, is he?

Sure he is. It's not difficult to close that distance.

I don't have a problem with guns per se, I have a problem with people like you being allowed to have them.

Then stay out of America, I guess, at least the U.S. part of it.

A young man is dead because another man had a gun. Zimmerman himself said Martin went for his weapon before he shot him - that implies Zimmerman had it drawn.

Yes, it's kinda hard to shoot someone without drawing the gun.

Why would Martin attack Zimmerman - he'd been out for munchies.

Don't know. Don't care. He paid for it.

Zimmerman was following him, and he had a gun - or are we disputing what the accused himself said, now?

And Martin attacked Zimmerman. And he was likely high...
http://www.cnn.com/2012/05/17/justic...html?hpt=hp_t1

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

The burden is on the prosecution, not the defense. They would have to prove he was not in fear of his life.

No, that can't be right. The prosecution has to prove he killed Martin in a premeditated way (murder), then Zimmerman has to argue the defence of "self defence"

Otherwise, anyone who killed someone in an altercation would just be let go - you'd never convicat anyone. So long as the other guy was facing you you could just go "self defence" and go on your merry way.

Zimmerman is guilty of murder unless it was self defence. He has to be able to demonstrate genuine mortal fear, at least on the balance of probability, surely.

Sure he is. It's not difficult to close that distance.

but to open that distance Martin would have to stop attacking him - if the first thing Zimmerman does once the attack stops is shoot the guy, that doesn't really look like self defence.

Then stay out of America, I guess, at least the U.S. part of it.

Given the state of the hospitals and lack of professional law enforcement I live in fear that I might have to visit your country. A largely irrational fear, admittedly, but between the friend of Banquo's who got beaten up by New York Police for crossing the road and the Guardian journalist who nearly lost her arm to spider bites I don't trust my luck, which is bad.

Yes, it's kinda hard to shoot someone without drawing the gun.

And it's kinda hard to draw a gun when someone's shooting you in the face.

Don't know. Don't care. He paid for it.

And Martin attacked Zimmerman.

Question: What if Martin had killed Zimmerman with his bare hands and when asked said, "the guy pulled a gun and tried to shoot me."

Would you then say Zimmerman got what he deserved as well?

What exactly makes Zimmerman's life more valuable than Martin's that it's ok for Martin to be killed, but not Zimmerman?

[Xiahou]

No, that can't be right. The prosecution has to prove he killed Martin in a premeditated way (murder), then Zimmerman has to argue the defence of "self defence"

Well, let's see....

In Florida, a homicide case can be thrown out by a judge before trial because the defendant successfully invokes self-defense. The burden is on the prosecution to disprove the claim in order to bring charges, rather than do so in the trial. The Florida state attorney leading the prosecution told ABC news that the self-defense law means it is "more difficult than a normal criminal case" to bring charges.

Understand, I think Zimmerman was overzealous and should have stayed in the car- that doesn't make him a murderer though. He probably wasn't charged initially because the DA's office knew that charges couldn't stick.

[rvg]

No, that can't be right. The prosecution has to prove he killed Martin in a premeditated way (murder), then Zimmerman has to argue the defence of "self defence"

Otherwise, anyone who killed someone in an altercation would just be let go - you'd never convicat anyone. So long as the other guy was facing you you could just go "self defence" and go on your merry way.

Zimmerman is guilty of murder unless it was self defence. He has to be able to demonstrate genuine mortal fear, at least on the balance of probability, surely.

No, it's the other way around. It's self defense unless the prosecution can prove otherwise.

but to open that distance Martin would have to stop attacking him - if the first thing Zimmerman does once the attack stops is shoot the guy, that doesn't really look like self defence.

Not necessary... he could have pulled a gun just as Martin was charging right at him.

And it's kinda hard to draw a gun when someone's shooting you in the face.

Que?

Question: What if Martin had killed Zimmerman with his bare hands and when asked said, "the guy pulled a gun and tried to shoot me."

Would you then say Zimmerman got what he deserved as well?

Sure. The survivor gets the presumption of innocence. He beat Zimmerman to death in self-defense unless the prosecution can prove otherwise.

What exactly makes Zimmerman's life more valuable than Martin's that it's ok for Martin to be killed, but not Zimmerman?

Nothing. Zimmerman said he was defending himself, and there's little reason to doubt him.

[Lemur]

.....that's what Zimmerman has been charged with- second degree murder.

You were not framing your question as specifically about this case, rather about whether there were cases in which you could kill another person and not get charged with murder. Actually, you put it in an even more convoluted formulation:

is there ever a case where one person can kill another in justifiable self-defense and not have to be charged with murder and go to trial in your opinion?

Which makes no sense from either angle; by framing the whole thing with "justifiable" you are either prematurely declaring Zimmerman innocent, again, or you're moving the goalposts from your hypothetical to a specific reading of this case. Hypothetical or specific; pick one and stick to it.

Anyway, I've answered your hypothetical fully and reasonably. And as I keep saying, Zimmerman deserves his day in court. How this can be a controversial position is kinda puzzling.

Otherwise, anyone who killed someone in an altercation would just be let go - you'd never convicat anyone. So long as the other guy was facing you you could just go "self defence" and go on your merry way.

Under the broadest possible reading of the Stand Your Ground Law, this would be the case. I cannot imagine a sane court reading the law in quite such a sweeping fashion, however. Yay for judges and juries. There's a reason the law is interpreted by men, not machines.

[Greyblades]

Under the broadest possible reading of the Stand Your Ground Law, this would be the case. I cannot imagine a sane court reading the law in quite such a sweeping fashion, however. Yay for judges and juries. There's a reason the law is interpreted by men, not machines.

...Huh, funnily enough I would prefer a machine compared to the sort of crap that can come out of the men being stupid and or bigoted.

[Lemur]

Holy ****, I did a brief post-work stroll through some news sources ... what the **** is wrong with Florida? Why is evidence cropping up all over the web? What the gah are they thinking?

I find this genuinely upsetting. Like this case wasn't already messed-up by media coverage, racists, race-baiters and opportunistic politicians of all stripes ... now they're plastering discovery material to any news outlet that's awake? Seriously, what the ****?

For crying out loud, all I wanted was a proper investigation and a fair trial. I guess that's a doomed hope. What a mess.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

No, it's the other way around. It's self defense unless the prosecution can prove otherwise.

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.

I'm sorry - but that looks like a defence against a crime. In order for Zimmerman not to be guilty of murder he must demonstrate that he believed, " such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself " otherwise he was not justified. Note the legal assumption - you are not justified in the use of deadly force only...

Burdan of proof must be on Zimmerman, at least on the balance of probabilities.

Not necessary... he could have pulled a gun just as Martin was charging right at him.

Use of deadly force requires deadly threat - and actually, Martin was already on top of him. So how did he pull the gun?

Que?

You know what I meant - try pulling something out of your jacket with someone sat on your chest.

Sure. The survivor gets the presumption of innocence. He beat Zimmerman to death in self-defense unless the prosecution can prove otherwise.

Nothing. Zimmerman said he was defending himself, and there's little reason to doubt him.

Ah, I see so in your country you can kill whoever you want provided it was in a fight?

-1 on Philipvs ever visiting any part of the US.

[Vladimir]

Anyone hear of the autopsy findings that showed he was shot at close range and had THC in his system?

[rvg]

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.

I'm sorry - but that looks like a defence against a crime. In order for Zimmerman not to be guilty of murder he must demonstrate that he believed, " such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself " otherwise he was not justified. Note the legal assumption - you are not justified in the use of deadly force only...

Burdan of proof must be on Zimmerman, at least on the balance of probabilities.

All he needs to do is reasonably believe, which he did.

Use of deadly force requires deadly threat - and actually, Martin was already on top of him. So how did he pull the gun?
You know what I meant - try pulling something out of your jacket with someone sat on your chest.

Guess he figured out a way. It's remarkable what someone can do to save his life.

Ah, I see so in your country you can kill whoever you want provided it was in a fight?
-1 on Philipvs ever visiting any part of the US.

Whatever floats your boat.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

All he needs to do is reasonably believe, which he did.

So he says - he should have to demonstrate it before a Court of Law, however, because otherwise his actions constitute murder.

Guess he figured out a way. It's remarkable what someone can do to save his life.

Unless he already had it out.

[Lemur]

Man, someone please explain to me why all of this information is being released to the public. Seems straight-up insane to this lemur. I guess we are genuinely meant to try him in the blogs and the news feeds?

Of the mass of detail coming out, the only thing that really seems relevant to me is this bit: "The lead homicide investigator [...] recommended that neighborhood watch captain George Zimmerman be charged with manslaughter" — which is probably the correct charge. Who knew that being there on the ground seeing the people and evidence firsthand could lead you to an informed conclusion?

I am amazed that both sides of this case are leaking pretty much everything to the press and nobody's getting in trouble. Is anything illegal in Florida?

[Greyblades]

Is anything illegal in Florida?

Well I hear comitting anything against disney is a death sentance in florida, though I dont think the guy who said that had the Criminal courts in mind.

[rvg]

So he says - he should have to demonstrate it before a Court of Law.

Should be easy enough to do.

because otherwise his actions constitute murder.

Where'd you find that part?

Unless he already had it out.

Speculation.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Where'd you find that part?

He killed a man in a premeditated act - without being able to demonstrate "self defence" he is guilty of either murder or manslaughter. It would be a one day trial, and on the first day he's have to plead out.

The fact that Zimmerman killed Martin is not in question - that is murder unless Zimmerman can mount a succesful defence.

How is this controversial?

He killed a man.

[Whacker]

He killed a man in a premeditated act

Prove it.

- without being able to demonstrate "self defence" he is guilty of either murder or manslaughter.

Your opinion. The law states what the statue is and what the consequences are. Have you read it? If so post it. Otherwise you're just making up an opinion.

It would be a one day trial, and on the first day he's have to plead out.

I love it. Please, keep telling us exactly how it works. Your overarching knowledge of everything is astounding.

The fact that Zimmerman killed Martin is not in question

Correct.

- that is murder unless Zimmerman can mount a succesful defence.

Again, your opinion. The actual law is the last word.

How is this controversial?

He killed a man.

Because under certain circumstances, lethal force is fully justified. The prosecution must make the case here and prove it. Thankfully in America, we have the right to not self incriminate to assist those making a case against us.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Prove it.

He deliberately shot him. That's a premeditated act, as opposed to not meaning to shoot him, which would be an accident.

Your opinion. The law states what the statue is and what the consequences are. Have you read it? If so post it. Otherwise you're just making up an opinion.

Did that. Statute says you are only justified in the use of lethal force when...

Ergo - you need to demonstrate a belief that you are in immidiate danger of death or serious injusry.

I love it. Please, keep telling us exactly how it works. Your overarching knowledge of everything is astounding.

Take away "self defence" and Zimmerman is undeniably guilty. His only possible out is the "self defence" claim. If he just said, "nah I shot him because he looked at me funny" he's go straight down.

Again, your opinion. The actual law is the last word.

Premeditated manslaughter is murder. Zimmerman shot him, he meant to shoot him, Martin died as a direct result.

Zimmerman is guilty of murder unless he can prove he was justified.

Because under certain circumstances, lethal force is fully justified. The prosecution must make the case here and prove it. Thankfully in America, we have the right to not self incriminate to assist those making a case against us.

Zimmerman's defence must be to prove those circumstances, if he cannot prove those circumstances he must be convicted.

It is not complicated.

You have the crime (which he committed) and you have the defences against being convicted of that crime (self defence here).

Zimmerman killed Martin in a premeditated act, he has admitted as much, it is his responsibility to justify his actions, not the responsibility of the State to let him off.

[Vladimir]

You have an interesting definition of premeditated that I can't see to find in the dictionary. Few things in a fight are premeditated in less you're Sherlock Holmes.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

You have an interesting definition of premeditated that I can't see to find in the dictionary. Few things in a fight are premeditated in less you're Sherlock Holmes.

Legally premeditation is the deliberate act - if you hit a guy round the head with a baseball bat, or shoot him, that's a premeditated act regardless of whether you only decided to do it a few moments before.

Zimmerman intended to shoot Martn - it was a "pre-meditated" act, he thought about it, then decided to do it. Indeed - his defence depends on premeditation, because he is arguing he decided to shoot Martin to save his own life.

http://www.diffen.com/difference/Fir..._Degree_Murder

You might try a legal dictionary:

http://www.lectlaw.com/def2/p075.htm

Zimmerman basically said, "I shot him because I thought he was going to kill me" not "we struggled and the gun went off in my hand."

He admits both the act and the decision to carry it out - Mens Rea et Actus Reus - neither mens nor actus are in doubt, only motive.

[Vladimir]

You might try to think about what you're implying. You're implying that he followed Trayvon with the intent to kill him and is claiming self-defense to get away with it.

Pulling your hand out of a fire isn't a premeditated act. Clear your head and use the time Zimmerman didn't have and come to a rational conclusion.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

You might try to think about what you're implying. You're implying that he followed Trayvon with the intent to kill him and is claiming self-defense to get away with it.

Pulling your hand out of a fire isn't a premeditated act. Clear your head and use the time Zimmerman didn't have and come to a rational conclusion.

Don't be a curr.

No - I'm implying no such thing.

In order for the Act to be premeditated he merely has to have thought about it. Zimmerman himself claims to have had enough time to decide "him or me", his defence relies upon it. It is not necessary for Zimmerman to have gone out that evening to kill someone, or even Martin, it is merely necessary for Zimmerman to have taken the decision to discharge his weapon in the knowledge that it would most likely kill Martin, and to have done it anyway.

Did Zimmerman mean to shoot Martin, or did he do it as a reflex? Zimmerman appears to have done it deliberately - so the act was premeditated.

Read the links I posted - all that is required is enough time to come to a decision.

[rvg]

In order for the Act to be premeditated he merely has to have thought about it.

Thought? No, not in this universe. Planned in advance is more like it.