|
Posted on 03/24/2012 4:27:07 AM PDT by Erik Latranyi
ORLANDO - An attorney representing George Zimmerman is speaking out, saying his client is not a racist, and that he acted in self-defense the night Trayvon Martin was shot and killed.
Craig Sonner spoke with FOX 35 in Orlando. He said he did not know George Zimmerman's location. He said due to death threats, he has been advising Zimmerman to avoid going out in public.
He referred to a flier saying Zimmerman was "Wanted dead or alive."
"I have advised him to stay out the public eye as much as he can," Sonner said.
Sonner also gave more details about injuries Zimmerman sustained that night.
"He did suffer a broken nose, and he has an injury to the back of his head which should have required stitches. I think he was delayed in getting to the doctor and having stitches put in. But he did sustain injuries to his head," Sonner said.
Sonner said portrayals of his client as a racist are not accurate. As an example, he cited Zimmerman's participation in fundraisers for an African-American church in the Orlando area.
Sonner said Zimmerman was under "a lot of stress."
"He's very concerned about the grave situation he's in. There's a young man who is now deceased in this situation, he's very concerned about that," Sonner said.
Yeah I have a sick feeling the DOJ will investigate and Obama will use this to force more regulations and anti gun laws to take away the 2nd ammendment rights of citizens. This could be the start of it, all in the name of “solving racism”.
The analysis isn't whether or not the other person got angry, it's whether a reasonable person would perceive the exchange as instigating or asking for a fight. Some people use anything as an excuse to get angry, that is, they come to anger unreasonably.
From my impression of how the physical confrontation started, I don't think the "stand your ground" principle is in play, at all.
Right. I started by saying that a "he said...he said" case will be hard to resolve with one of the two dead.
calex59, it's NEVER been the law that you can use deadly force in a fight where you are a willing participant. J.... Ch...., how many manslaughter convictions have there been coming out of bar fights?
All I'm saying is that I DON'T KNOW if the Florida "stand your ground" law CHANGES THE COMMON LAW OF SELF-DEFENSE, and I asked if any knowledgable freepers could enlighten me.
Do you know if the Florida "stand your ground" law CREATES the right to use deadly force once you start losing a fight in which you are not the aggressor but which you could avoid by reasonable conduct?
I mean, you have the right to be in a given bar, and you have the right to fight back if attacked, but if you wade into a bar fight that you didn't start, punch a guy, and he falls, hits his head, and dies, that's manslaughter, right?
All I'm asking is, in Florida now, if under the same circumstances, he knocks you down and you shoot him, is that legal and proper use of "stand your ground"?
The facts of this case are a nightmare for Obama. His DOJ may have to try a Catholic hispanic in Florida, who was getting the hell beat out of him by a black guy. Hispanics are not going to appreciate that Obama already noted his non existent son would “look like” the black guy.
Otoh, Obama so wants to rile up the black vote to encourage a huge turnout.
Meanwhile, imho, white voters hate it when Obama steps into racial controversies.
Turning this into any kind of general issue involving blacks is disgusting. You could as well say it proves blacks beat people up, as say “blacks are under attack.”
To get to your question, Jim, I can speak to Florida's laws on this. I've had to use a firearm in self-defense twice in my life, and it was shortly after I turned 21. I was in college in Tallahassee, and this happened even before Stand Your Ground was law.
It removes the duty to retreat or de-escalate. It also allows any lawful gun owner to have their weapon with them in any place where they are legally allowed to be. So, for instance, they can have a pistol on their side in their home, on their property, in their vehicle, boat, etc. They can also have a firearm on them in a friend's home or vehicle, provided that owner is okay with it. Since you are required to carry concealed and Florida does not allow open carry (yet), you can't legally carry a firearm in a restaurant, grocery store, WalMart, etc. despite being legally permitted to be there.
Zimmerman was not on duty for the watch, but he was on a personal errand. From his home to his vehicle and on the road, he's legally allowed to have that firearm with him. As soon as he got out of that vehicle, he can't legally have his gun unless he has a CWP (did they mention yet if he's a holder?). This is where the story gets a little muddy. He went looking for Martin, but broke off the search. At some point back to his vehicle, he was attacked. At this point, Stand Your Ground permits him to defend himself regardless of the disposition of force. Florida law makes no accessions for equality of force.
Someone comes at you with a weapon, you only have to be in fear for your life to shoot. That's the key phrase, even I had to use it in my situation: "I was in fear for my life." Period, case over. Law enforcement cannot, under Florida law, arrest you for pulling the trigger. Maybe they come knocking on your door at a later date to follow up, but you walk away.
If memory serves, the cops were acquitted of the charge of murder. Murder implies intent, premeditation. The cops in the Rodney King case were over-charged—probably in response to the mob-mentality resulting from the excerpted video being played over and over again.
Look, the idea of “what to think” is taught in the media, as well as in the public schools.
How upside down is it that Al, Jesse, Farrakhan, The Black Panthers et al are prancing around and spouting BS and both this attorney and his dad feel compelled to say 'he is not racist'
1984 anyone?
From the comments at that page, the photos are not of the deceased.
Would that only be considered trespassing and not breaking and entering? It would be like the illegal aliens only being cited for trespassing when they cross the border illegally. Wouldn’t a gated community hold some kind of illegal entry violation to the perp?
I was very young when Kent State happened; I don’t remember it at all. I’ve never met anyone who disagreed with the guardsmen’s actions, probably because people I know understand the difference between the National Guard and the Green Berets, and I don’t know anyone whose parents were on the left during Vietnam. Many of my friends had fathers who served in the war (and were proud of it) or who had served prior to the war.
Thanks.
I’m not surprised of the gang sing / thug pictures considering where this occured. Sanford isn’t some pristine upperclass suburban area on the outskirts of Disney World. It’s more like Compton, sketchy parts of LA and the inner city hell holes across the country.
looking at Prosser, Wade and Schwartz's "Torts - Cases and Materials" 9th edition, on page 104 under the heading of "Self-Defense," point No 6 says (without giving any case cite):
Retreat. One basic disagreement in approach to the privilege of self-defense focuses on whether the defendant must retreat if he can do so without increasing his danger, rather than stand his ground and use force. It is settle that he may stand his ground and use any force short of that likely to cause serious injury. The common law was that, rather than kill his assailant or seriously wound him, defendant must "retreat to the wall." A minority of the American courts still apply this rule, and it is adopted by the Restatement (Second) of Torts Sec. 65. The majority, chiefly in the south and west, have insisted upon a higher important of the dignity and honor of the individual and have held that the defendant may stand his ground and use deadly force, and even kill his assailant. [Remark about retreating from a gun bearing assailant skipped]and Section 65 of Restatement of Torts 2nd, says this ...
S: 65. Self-Defense By Force Threatening Death Or Serious Bodily Harm (1) Subject to the statement in Subsection (3), an actor is privileged to defend himself against another by force intended or likely to cause death or serious bodily harm, when he reasonably believes thatThe link has notes and example scenarios.(a) the other is about to inflict upon him an intentional contact or other bodily harm, and that
(b) he is thereby put in peril of death or serious bodily harm or ravishment, which can safely be prevented only by the immediate use of such force.
(2) The privilege stated in Subsection (1) exists although the actor correctly or reasonably believes that he can safely avoid the necessity of so defending himself by
(a) retreating if he is attacked within his dwelling place, which is not also the dwelling place of the other, or
(b) permitting the other to intrude upon or dispossess him of his dwelling place, or
(c) abandoning an attempt to effect a lawful arrest.
(3) The privilege stated in Subsection (1) does not exist if the actor correctly or reasonably believes that he can with complete safety avoid the necessity of so defending himself by
(a) retreating if attacked in any place other than his dwelling place, or in a place which is also the dwelling of the other, or
(b) relinquishing the exercise of any right or privilege other than his privilege to prevent intrusion upon or dispossession of his dwelling place or to effect a lawful arrest.
Rodney King didn’t die; there were no murder charges.
The cops were accused for the beating, and cleared by a jury (who saw the WHOLE tape - it was evidence). The feds then got involved and brought them up ion charges in a second trial, for civil rights violations (the catch-all when the desired verdict isn’t reached); this second layer of protection is only available to ethnic minorities, women, homosexuals, basically anyone but a Christian male of European descent. In the second trial they got the desired verdict (and more whites fled CA).
Sanford is near the armpit of Florida known as Orlando. If it looked middle-class, it WAS upscale for that area.
The NBP should be rounded up and placed in prison for being a domestic terrorist organization.
Did Obama really say that? Wouldn’t that be offensive somehow if he had said that?
A teachable moment.
This won't change anyone's opinion, true but it will fire up the base, black people who will vote for Obama come what may because he is black and leftist white people who would vote for Obama anyway because he is red.
776.012 Use of force in defense of person.
—A person is justified in using 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 the other’s imminent use of unlawful force. However, a person is justified in the use of deadly force and does not have a duty to retreat if:
(1) 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; or
(2) Under those circumstances permitted pursuant to s. 776.013.
Do we have a definitive source for them? With some of them it is hard to tell it was him.
I would agree with you there. If one were attacked from behind and knocked to the ground then pummeled by an assailant much larger than you, standing ones ground is no longer in the equation. It has now become a matter of survival........
"Stand your ground" presumes that you have an avenue of retreat. Mr. Zimmerman did not, he was on his back with his assailant on top of him......
I wish I lived there; I would get one of those flyers and reprint them with the leader of the Black Panthers face and name on it and redistribute it right back at them!
I don’t think many “leftist whites” will vote for Obama this time; their utopia hasn’t materialized, and they are struggling along with everyone else.
Despite what many think, OWS is not a bastion of support for Obama; they feel deceived by him, and many are still looking for their first jobs. They probably won’t support a Republican, but they won’t be fooled again by the Kenyan Pirate. I think the only “leftist whites” in his corner are homosexuals and public school teachers.
Even blacks have a lot less incentive to vote for him, and I’m sure they are a lower percentage of the electorate now than they were four years ago
Castle Doctrine laws clearly improve the situation of reasonable actors. I mean, it is prima facie reasonable to use deadly force against a stranger breaking in.
Stand Your Ground laws, OTOH, are unclear (to me) about whether or not, lacking a duty to retreat, now also void a duty to act reasonably. My example of joining a bar fight and shooting if things don't go your way is on point.
IF (and it's a big if) a jury finds that Zimmerman, in toto, acted unreasonably in confronting Martin, does the current Florida law protect him once he started getting his ass kicked?
That's the question I'm looking for an answer to.
There was a somewhat similar case in Houston, 2-3 years ago. Mr. Joe Horn (white guy) was at home and observed a daytime burglary of his neighbor’s home. Horn confronted the two black, illegal aliens and killed them when they attacked him. The local rabble pimps demanded Horn’s head RIGHT NOW. Grand Jury refused to indict him and he was freed without charges AFTER all the facts were presented. The rabble pimps tried to protest at Horn’s home. Many Houstonians came to Horn’s assistance and literally CHASED the pimps out.
Obama’s teachable moment in MA was the first time people realized he was a thinner Al Sharpton; he’s been bleeding “white” support ever since.
Want to prove your asserting about what the law says by giving us a legal citstion of the exact law that say it?
Being that I am surrounded by leftist whites much of the time, they will indeed be pulling the lever for Obama again. Anyway, fashionably liberal whites in NY and NJ are irrelevant as both states voting for Obama are foregone conclusions. What matters are swing voters in Ohio. Colorado and Virginia.
Yep. Once you're overwhelmed with physical force, the option of retreat ins't available. It would be asinine for the law to assign a duty to retreat, to a person who is overwhelmed with force.
Don't understand the question. What am I asserting that you want a cite for?
|
Those hand signals are gang signs. People in the know can tell you which gang he is in.
Geraldo may be a nut in almost every way, but he was right about the hoodie. That is part of the gang uniform.
In the late 60’s and 70’s black would wear hoodies to show they were part of “The Black Klan”. It was the black version of the KKK.
I guess not everyone is pleased with the Constitution or the Rule of Law.
Bump.
It's not. A person standing ground and using force also has to be acting in reasonable apprehension.
-- IF (and it's a big if) a jury finds that Zimmerman, in toto, acted unreasonably in confronting Martin, does the current Florida law protect him once he started getting his ass kicked? --
The law is well aware of situations wehre the tables turn, and a person who "started it," then decides to retreat, is not held to be acting unreasonably if he later defends himself against an attack. The "it" in "who started it" doesn't necessarily refer to the entire sequence of events.
If Zimmerman had broken off his chase, and was returning to his truck, and Martin jumped him, then Martin started it. Martin is liable, and Zimmerman 1) isn't in a "stand your ground" situation at all; 2)Martin has a right to use force to defend himself. That section of Restatement does a good job of describing what is "reasonable" as far as apprehending a risk of serious injury; and reasonable apprehension of serious injury justifes the use of deadly force.
He may be owed them, but you can bet that he will never get them.
“both states voting for Obama are foregone conclusions.”
Both states are in horrible shape financially, and it has trickled to the bottom at this point; there is little reason for anyone of any color in NY or NJ to vote for Obama. Our unemployment is worse than many areas, our taxes are higher; what will Obama promise this time? The decline hasn’t been more noticeable anywhere, with the possible exception of California. Governor Christie won in NJ one year after the state voted for Obama; we’ve learned quickly. Obama will be forced to fight for all 50 states.
The situation of jumping in to a bar fight will be viewed with an eye to why the person entered the fray. If the reason is to break it up, and the person breaking it up becomes a target of force, then there is a right to use self-defense.
A police officer who is breaking up a fight can obtain a right to shoot, depending on the actions of the fighters.
But, if the person entering the fray is intending further escalation, he loses the right of self defense.
How can I prove that to liberal, near brain dead Obama voters?
He who transits from speech to physical attack is in the wrong, no matter WHAT the speech is. Evidence is that Martin initiated the physicality. “Being pissed-off” is not grounds for assault.
That is why the artist protrayed Obama burning it. The Constitution & Rule of Law became irrelevant when affirmative action became legal; they are selectively applied. In the end, the words have meaning to a steadily declining number of people anyway (and that was done deliberately in the education system).
“it’s NEVER been the law that you can use deadly force in a fight where you are a willing participant
“Clearly, you can’t use deadly force in a fight you provoke and then plead self-defense. I think that’s true everywhere, whether or not there is a “stand your ground” law.”
“it’s NEVER been the law that you can use deadly force in a fight where you are a willing participant
“Clearly, you can’t use deadly force in a fight you provoke and then plead self-defense. I think that’s true everywhere, whether or not there is a “stand your ground” law.”
What are you talking about? Florida only has a law specifically stating about duties to not retreat because they were dumb enough to have one that said a person had a duty to retreat in the first place. Only to some dumb a dirt idiot politician would a person be required to flee a bad guy and not the other way around.
We went past 1984 before 1984, you just don't know it.
I think I’m citing the common law as it pertains to homicide.
I agree about the idiot politicians and the need for some type of stand your ground protection. I just want to understand how far the Florida law goes to change the common law.
Your points may have some validity. What they don’t have is anything to do with the Zimmerman shooting. Obammie may have trouble in this election (I profoundly hope so.) He will not have any more trouble because of the Zimmerman shooting and his stupid comments about it. I believe he will have less trouble.
“What they don’t have is anything to do with the Zimmerman shooting.”
When whites see large numbers of black males milling about protesting without facts, it never bodes well for any Democrat; Obama wants this (at least the footage of “million hoodie marches” to go away. “White guilt” died in November 2008, and has been replaced by “white apathy” and “white rage”.
Florida doesn’t subscribe to common law. You have to research the appropriate statutes.
The article I read referred to Zimmerman as a “white Hispanic”.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
