Posted on 07/06/2013 12:52:17 PM PDT by marktwain
Thank you.
Needs to be repeated. It is not even that uncommon.
Even if you are not killed immediately, you can easily be rendered unconscious and completely at your attacker's dubious “mercy”. They can then kill you at their leisure.
bookmark
You're right, he had no duty to retreat since he was on his back and couldn't escape.
With the Castle Doctrine if somebody breaks in your house, the court's assumption is that you are in mortal fear so self defense is legitimate.
I believe that with “stand your ground”, as long as you are not committing a crime when you are attacked, there is a presumption that you are in mortal fear so self defense is legitimate.
The accused would not have to prove his innocence, it would fall on the prosecutor to prove guilt.
It’s because the Scheme Team who created the Zimmerman case talked up SYG to draw support to their cause from existing SYG opponents and the usual leftist elements, especially those who control most of the media. Emphasizing SYG makes it sound like the GZ situation was not really about self-defense, but a macho standoff. BGI lawyers like Crump know that SYG stops the flow of ca$h into their pockets by providing immunity from civil claims (stopping the attackers from suing those who defended themselves). Nuts who see racism in statistical disparities are aghast that SYG takes out a quantity of minorities proportionate to their commission of crimes rather than their presense in the population.
Some police, prosecutors and judges oppose SYG because it empowers individuals (to be fair, they probably see some dubious SYG claims). Leftists tend to oppose self-defense, because they feel helpless and think everyone should be dependent too. It relates to their conception that each life is merely part of an organic mass rather than an individual existence with unique value. For all these reasons, lefts like to use the GZ case as an excuse to attack SYG, even if it is not applicable.
Excellent post and points.
You can do a lot of litigating with 7 figures.
the info for the Crump reversal can be found here
http://theconservativetreehouse.com/2013/06/03/crump-will-be-deposed-5th-dca-decision-omara-wins-judge-nelson-reversed/
I never really considered a CCW for myself, never thought I personally really it, and I haven’t.
But when I think about the few days after a Zimmerman not-guilty verdict, I think it might be a good idea.
Judge Nelson is SO IN THE TANK as a Prosecutor’s Judge...look at this
“In other news, the court reversed Judge Nelson in a self-defense case last week, Spurgeon v. State, in which she had refused to instruct the jury on self-defense. The court reiterates the minimal showing the defendant must make to get the instruction:
A trial court’s decision to give or withhold a proposed jury instruction is generally reviewed for an abuse of discretion. Vila v. State, 74 So. 3d 1110, 1112 (Fla. 5th DCA 2011). However, the trial court’s discretion is more restricted in criminal proceedings “because a criminal defendant is entitled to have the jury instructed on his or her theory of defense if there is any evidence to support the theory and the theory is recognized as valid under Florida law.” Id.
The trial court should not weigh the evidence when determining whether to give the requested instruction. Id.; see also Pope v. State, 458 So. 2d 327, 329 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984) (stating that “it is axiomatic that a defendant is entitled to have the jury instructed on the rules of law applicable to his theory of defense if there is any evidence to support such an instruction, and the trial court may not weigh the evidence in determining whether the instruction is appropriate”) (citing Smith v. State, 424 So. 2d 726, 732 (Fla. 1982)). The jury — not the trial judge — decides the weight of the evidence. Vila, 74 So. 3d at 1112. “The question of self-defense is one of fact, and is one for the jury to decide where the facts are disputed.” Id.
Additionally, a defendant is not required to testify at trial to receive a jury instruction on self-defense. Sipple, 972 So. 2d at 915. A defendant’s statements admitted into evidence at trial may be sufficient evidence for a self-defense instruction. Id. The cross-examination of State witnesses can also support a claim of self-defense. Id. at 916.
Finally, if a jury can reasonably infer from circumstantial evidence presented at trial that the defendant had the state of mind necessary for self-defense, then the defendant is entitled to a jury instruction on self-defense. Johnson v. State, 634 So. 2d 1144, 1145 (Fla. 4th DCA 1994).
B..b..but I thought "ignorance of the law [was] no excuse"?? So now you're screwed if you don't learn the laws, AND they want the fact that you DID learn the laws to be considered incriminating??
“If you are carrying a firearm any physical conflict will result in a gun fight. You can’t risk losing your weapon and being shot or have it taken from you and be responsible for someone else being shot..”
There are many lesser forms of physical conflict which would not require the use of deadly force. A typical pushing contest is one, or if a much smaller and older person slaps you.
I am sure that you can think of other examples.
Not all physical conflicts are serious or deadly.
Just one of many idiocies in this idiotic prosecution.
Only the likely possibility of hidden agendas keeps me from thinking all the prosecutorial team are idiots.
I would never initiate any physical conflict while carrying.
I will back away like a coward if it means not having to shoot at someone, as long as I and any innocents threatened are safe in doing so.
I would like to see the jury pronounce Zimmerman ‘not guilty of 2nd degree murder by means of Self Defense’.
The probably civil trial against Zimmerman by whomever would be much more easily dismissed or counter-sued if this trial’s verdict provided evidence that any future charges even in civil trial are mute.
Otherwise, it is too easy for deep pockets to destroy Zimmerman’s life for another decade or more without defending the virtue of men seeking to live righteously and defending the weak from predators.
“I will back away like a coward if it means not having to shoot at someone, as long as I and any innocents threatened are safe in doing so.”
Yep. Goes to a “An armed society is a polite society”. Even if I’m the only one armed.
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.