Trayvon Martin case: use of Stand Your Ground law or pursuit of a black teen?

[derspiess]

my point is that martin's apparent physical assault causing a cut on the back of zimmermasn's head is sufficient evidence from which a fact finder could conclude that zimmerman believed his life was in imminent danger thereby justifying zimmerman's use of deadly force in his own defense

Zimmerman's assault predicated Martin's battery.

When and how did this initial assault take place?

[CountDeMoney]

On the contrary;  many states are very, very specific on your responsibility to not actively engage, to pursue any avenue to remove yourself from the situation.

That's why, here in in Maryland, if you shoot someone coming through your front door, and yet you have the ability to leave via the back door safely, you will get charged.  The burden is on you to take egress whenever practical and possible.  It is your responsibility to remove yourself from the situation safely, as deadly force is a last resort.

Now, if you're cornered, or on the 6th floor, different story.  And don't even think about shooting somebody in the back.  You go to jail.

Maryland sucks.  Castle doctrine FTW.

I hope you like prison food.  And penis.

No, thanks.  I live in Ohio.

http://www.wkyc.com/news/regional/article/216035/6/Ohios-Castle-Doctrine-lets-homeowners-shoot-first

Meh, you'd fuck it all up.

[Razgovory]

there was objective evidence from wich the investigating officer could conclude that zimmerman shot martin after martin hit him over the head from behind with some object

while you can interpret the facts differently a conviction must be with evidence beyond a reasonable doubt and based upon the corroborating evidence the cops could have reasonably concluded that the evidence would not meet the very high standard needed for a conviction

Oh I see. It's almost as if the police should have gathered more evidence on the scene and, you know, investigated the incident. I mean, they're obviously not going to find evidence needed for the high standard of conviction if they don't look for it.

I'm not sure if someone claiming "He hit me first" counts as "Objective evidence".

[Rasputin]

I will ask again, what fact did I change?  Do you have an answer?

i never suggested in any of my posts that merely pushing someone would justify deadly force

a physical assault from behind sufficient to cut their head and make their nose bleed likely does

while you correctly point out that someone can interprest the facts differently, that question is legally irrelevant to whether the cops could have reasonably believed that there was insufficient evidence to prove a crime

your analysis would only work in a system where we presume guilt

[Rasputin]

there was objective evidence from wich the investigating officer could conclude that zimmerman shot martin after martin hit him over the head from behind with some object

while you can interpret the facts differently a conviction must be with evidence beyond a reasonable doubt and based upon the corroborating evidence the cops could have reasonably concluded that the evidence would not meet the very high standard needed for a conviction

Oh I see. It's almost as if the police should have gathered more evidence on the scene and, you know, investigated the incident. I mean, they're obviously not going to find evidence needed for the high standard of conviction if they don't look for it.

so youve got the investigative file or seen it?

[Rasputin]

there was objective evidence from wich the investigating officer could conclude that zimmerman shot martin after martin hit him over the head from behind with some object

while you can interpret the facts differently a conviction must be with evidence beyond a reasonable doubt and based upon the corroborating evidence the cops could have reasonably concluded that the evidence would not meet the very high standard needed for a conviction

Oh I see. It's almost as if the police should have gathered more evidence on the scene and, you know, investigated the incident. I mean, they're obviously not going to find evidence needed for the high standard of conviction if they don't look for it.

I'm not sure if someone claiming "He hit me first" counts as "Objective evidence".

this is not two people claiming "he hit me first" after a fight

we know that martin did not hit zimmerman after zimmmerman shot him dead

thus the cops at the scene have to believe that zimmerman got physically assalted or assaulted himself

either way, they could conclude that a conviction wuld be tough

[Razgovory]

I will ask again, what fact did I change?  Do you have an answer?

are you really that fucking stupid?

i never suggested in any of my posts that merely pushing someone would justify deadly force

a physical assault from behind sufficient to cut their head and make their nose bleed likely does

while you correctly point out that someone can interprest the facts differently, that question is legally irrelevant to whether the cops could have reasonably believed that there was insufficient evidence to prove a crime

your analysis would only work in a system where we presume guilt

Assault can be a misdemeanor charge can't it?  Can pushing someone down count as Assault or Battery?  You can can cut your head if you are pushed down can't you?  Why is the question "legally irrelevant"?  Cause the cops said so?

Wait a second, police are required to "presume innocence"?  I had no idea.  I thought the presumption of innocence thing was a bit further down the line.  On trial side of the system.  How the hell do you investigate any crime if the default assumption is that all parties are innocent?

This may shock you, but people who shoot other people, they sometimes lie about it.

[Razgovory]

this is not two people claiming "he hit me first" after a fight

we know that martin did not hit zimmerman after zimmmerman shot him dead

thus the cops at the scene have to believe that zimmerman got physically assalted or assaulted himself

either way, they could conclude that a conviction wuld be tough

Yes, there is only one story.  Cause one party killed the other.  That does cut down on witnesses.  Why do they have to believe that?  They can't believe he bumped his head getting out of the car?  They can't believe that Zimmerman attacked the kid the kid fought back hurt Zimmerman and he then shot the kid?  They can't believe that Zimmerman pulled a gun on the kid, the kid hit Zimmerman in an attempt to get away and Zimmerman shot him?  They just have to accept Zimmerman's story of getting lost in his own neighborhood, getting out of his car to check a street sign only be ambushed by the person who he had been keeping a very keen eye on until then but apparently lost track of just at that moment?

[CountDeMoney]

my point is that martin's apparent physical assault causing a cut on the back of zimmermasn's head is sufficient evidence from which a fact finder could conclude that zimmerman believed his life was in imminent danger thereby justifying zimmerman's use of deadly force in his own defense

Zimmerman's assault predicated Martin's battery.

When and how did this initial assault take place?

By approaching Martin in the manner in which he did; by not making an announcement as to who is was or his intentions, without any challenge, inducing a sense of fear in Martin(as communicated to the individual he was speaking with on his cell phone) with a deadly weapon on his person--which was, for a guy that called 911 42 times in a calendar year as a self-appointed vigilante, most likely already brandished.

You do know that physical contact is not a legal requirement to commit an assault, right?  That's battery.

[Rasputin]

this is not two people claiming "he hit me first" after a fight

we know that martin did not hit zimmerman after zimmmerman shot him dead

thus the cops at the scene have to believe that zimmerman got physically assalted or assaulted himself

either way, they could conclude that a conviction wuld be tough

Yes, there is only one story.  Cause one party killed the other.  That does cut down on witnesses.  Why do they have to believe that?  They can't believe he bumped his head getting out of the car?  They can't believe that Zimmerman attacked the kid the kid fought back hurt Zimmerman and he then shot the kid?  They can't believe that Zimmerman pulled a gun on the kid, the kid hit Zimmerman in an attempt to get away and Zimmerman shot him?  They just have to accept Zimmerman's story of getting lost in his own neighborhood, getting out of his car to check a street sign only be ambushed by the person who he had been keeping a very keen eye on until then but apparently lost track of just at that moment?

there you go again

do you actually read my posts?

i never said the cops had to believe zimmerman's story or there was  only one possible interpretation of the facts


what i have said and will continue to say is there was objective evidence from which this investigating agency could have reasonably execised the discretion that it did to not charge zimmerman with a crime

that you refuse to understand what discretion means is either your own trolling out of boredom or stupidity or both

[derspiess]

No, thanks.  I live in Ohio.

http://www.wkyc.com/news/regional/article/216035/6/Ohios-Castle-Doctrine-lets-homeowners-shoot-first

Meh, you'd fuck it all up.

Hopefully we'll never find out.  I don't relish the notion of shooting or killing another human being and hope I'm never forced to do so.




This forum is searchable on Google, right? 

[Razgovory]

What is this "Objective Evidence"?

[Lettow77]

 Trayvon is a criminal's name. It seems like an open and shut case.

[Rasputin]

my point is that martin's apparent physical assault causing a cut on the back of zimmermasn's head is sufficient evidence from which a fact finder could conclude that zimmerman believed his life was in imminent danger thereby justifying zimmerman's use of deadly force in his own defense

Zimmerman's assault predicated Martin's battery.

When and how did this initial assault take place?

By approaching Martin in the manner in which he did; by not making an announcement as to who is was or his intentions, without any challenge, inducing a sense of fear in Martin(as communicated to the individual he was speaking with on his cell phone) with a deadly weapon on his person--which was, for a guy that called 911 42 times in a calendar year as a self-appointed vigilante, most likely already brandished.

You do know that physical contact is not a legal requirement to commit an assault, right?  That's battery.

while physical contact is a necessary element of criminal battery, following someone is not criminal assault (although brandishing clearly woud be)

had he brandished, i would imagine that the girl friend would have mentioned martin's saying "dude's got a gun" when she first went to the press?

[CountDeMoney]

had he brandished, i would imagine that the girl friend would have mentioned martin's saying "dude's got a gun" when she first went to the press?

Not necessarily.