Author Topic: Immunity Hearing: Stand Your Ground and/or Self-Defense  (Read 25196 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline nomatter_nevermind

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5449
  • Rate Post +0/-0
Re: Immunity Hearing: Stand Your Ground and/or Self-Defense
« Reply #30 on: August 16, 2012, 04:18:52 PM »
Except that almost all of the evidence demonstrates TM was the one acting as the aggressor.

Strictly speaking, most of the evidence doesn't bear on that question one way or the other. I know that's nitpicking, but your wording suggests that there is a lot of evidence that Martin was the aggressor. I would say there is almost none. What there is, Zimmerman's statements, are not credible in the opinion of many, including myself.

The same may be said of Dee Dee, whose statements are the only evidence Zimmerman was the aggressor.

Offline cboldt

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1262
  • Rate Post +0/-0
Re: Immunity Hearing: Stand Your Ground and/or Self-Defense
« Reply #31 on: August 16, 2012, 04:27:52 PM »
Strictly speaking, most of the evidence doesn't bear on that question one way or the other. I know that's nitpicking, but your wording suggests that there is a lot of evidence that Martin was the aggressor. I would say there is almost none. What there is, Zimmerman's statements, are not credible in the opinion of many, including myself.

Don't overlook the inferences that can be made.  Zimmerman called the police before embarking on his quest to keep Martin in sight, for example.

From your remark above, I take it you are inclined to believe Zimmerman threatened or used force against Martin, before Martin took a swing at Zimmerman.  You arrive at this point because you don't find Zimmerman credible, so when he says or implies that he did not provoke the use of force, you think that is probably a false statement.

Offline annoyedbeyond

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1407
  • Rate Post +0/-0
Re: Immunity Hearing: Stand Your Ground and/or Self-Defense
« Reply #32 on: August 16, 2012, 04:55:54 PM »
Strictly speaking, most of the evidence doesn't bear on that question one way or the other. I know that's nitpicking, but your wording suggests that there is a lot of evidence that Martin was the aggressor. I would say there is almost none. What there is, Zimmerman's statements, are not credible in the opinion of many, including myself.

The same may be said of Dee Dee, whose statements are the only evidence Zimmerman was the aggressor.

No.

Zimmerman is the one with the injuries. There are witnesses that put TM on top of GZ. GZ called the police asking for help. GZ was screaming for help--picked up on the 911 calls. Etc.

I understand that you don't find Zimmerman credible, but you don't have to like him or even really believe him to analyze the evidence available.

And your problem is you have no evidence to back up your theory. What little there is backs up GZ.

« Last Edit: August 16, 2012, 04:57:52 PM by annoyedbeyond »

Offline nomatter_nevermind

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5449
  • Rate Post +0/-0
Re: Immunity Hearing: Stand Your Ground and/or Self-Defense
« Reply #33 on: August 16, 2012, 05:06:29 PM »
Don't overlook the inferences that can be made.  Zimmerman called the police before embarking on his quest to keep Martin in sight, for example.

Good point.

There's also Zimmerman's injuries, and Martin's relative lack of same.

The sound of Zimmerman's voice on the police call tells me Zimmerman was afraid of Martin.

Martin had a phone, but he didn't call anyone close enough to help him. That tells me he wasn't afraid of Zimmerman.

It's interesting that Dee Dee apparently admitted to Crump that Martin deliberately got closer, 'trying to look in the car'. De la Rionda managed to avoid eliciting that.

Quote
From your remark above, I take it you are inclined to believe Zimmerman threatened or used force against Martin, before Martin took a swing at Zimmerman.

Invalid inference. Incorrect conclusion.

Quote
You arrive at this point because you don't find Zimmerman credible, so when he says or implies that he did not provoke the use of force, you think that is probably a false statement.

That would be poor reasoning on my part.

Martin was more likely the aggressor if I had to guess. The evidence isn't strong enough either way for me to say I have an opinion.

Offline unitron

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1060
  • Rate Post +0/-0
Re: Immunity Hearing: Stand Your Ground and/or Self-Defense
« Reply #34 on: August 16, 2012, 06:21:18 PM »
Except that almost all of the evidence demonstrates TM was the one acting as the aggressor.


edited for Deb

Except almost all of that subset of the evidence which concerns who started it is what Zimmerman says, and if the state were willing to concede all of his claims they'd be hard pressed to justify having brought charges in the first place.

Which they may be anyway, although due less to evidence and more to a lack of it.

Offline cboldt

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1262
  • Rate Post +0/-0
Re: Immunity Hearing: Stand Your Ground and/or Self-Defense
« Reply #35 on: August 16, 2012, 06:30:33 PM »
Martin was more likely the aggressor if I had to guess. The evidence isn't strong enough either way for me to say I have an opinion.

We all have the same evidence.  If you say it's more likely that Martin was the aggressor, then the state's case turns on the events involved in the altercation.

Seems you do have an opinion, you just aren't able or willing to articulate it.  Your opinion or finding is that it is more likely Martin was the aggressor, and that Zimmerman did not provoke violence.

Offline unitron

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1060
  • Rate Post +0/-0
Re: Immunity Hearing: Stand Your Ground and/or Self-Defense
« Reply #36 on: August 16, 2012, 06:32:48 PM »
That makes sense but it just seems that saying "he probably acted because of" is incredibly weak. It leaves room for so much reasonable doubt it wouldn't be worth saying. But I don't know how much of a burden the prosecution has in a case like this.

Since the state wasn't there they aren't able to say Martin did this or didn't do that, but the state, it would seem most likely, will try to put the best spin on anything he did or didn't do.

Offline annoyedbeyond

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1407
  • Rate Post +0/-0
Re: Immunity Hearing: Stand Your Ground and/or Self-Defense
« Reply #37 on: August 16, 2012, 06:40:48 PM »
Except almost all of that subset of the evidence which concerns who started it is what Zimmerman says, and if the state were willing to concede all of his claims they'd be hard pressed to justify having brought charges in the first place.

Which they may be anyway, although due less to evidence and more to a lack of it.


I think I agree with you.

Offline RickyJim

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1580
  • Rate Post +0/-0
Re: Immunity Hearing: Stand Your Ground and/or Self-Defense
« Reply #38 on: August 16, 2012, 06:53:12 PM »
Your reply #17.

You messed up by first finding Zimmerman to have provoked the use of force,
I had my hypothetical judge finding it more likely than not that Zimmerman provoked the use of force against him by Martin by applying .012 to justify Martin's use of force, a definition of provoking that Jeralyn has used.
Quote
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.
It certainly is reasonable, but perhaps not more likely than not, that Martin reasonably believed he had to do something to prevent Zimmerman getting whatever it was out of his pocket.  I am unclear (and keep on asking) what standard of proof is needed for a judge to make such an intermediate decision at an immunity hearing.  But let's continue the hypothetical with him making it.

Quote
then finding his use of force justified under .041 (at which point you should be done), then jumping to .012 or .013 to find the same thing you already found, that the use of force (by Zimmerman) was justified.

Under .041, if a person claiming justified use of force provoked the use of force, you are stuck in .041.  That section still allows the person to be justified in defending himself, but one who provokes the use of force in the first place doesn't get to jump out of .041.

Under .041, if a person claiming justified use of force did NOT provoke the use of force, then .041 doesn't apply to that person - go to .012, .013, or .031.

I don't follow you because 0.41 is quite explicit in saying
Quote
776.041 Use of force by aggressor.—The justification described in the preceding sections of this chapter is not available to a person who:
(1) Is attempting to commit, committing, or escaping after the commission of, a forcible felony; or
(2) Initially provokes the use of force against himself or herself, unless:
That unless is my whole point.  Even if Zimmerman is deemed by the judge to be the initial provoker of force against himself, the previous sections of chapter 776, which include .012 and .032, are apparently available to Zimmerman if either of the 2 unless conditions (a) and (b) are found to apply.  You haven't addressed the issue of why they don't.
« Last Edit: August 16, 2012, 07:04:48 PM by RickyJim »

Offline JW

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 71
  • Rate Post +0/-0
Re: Immunity Hearing: Stand Your Ground and/or Self-Defense
« Reply #39 on: August 16, 2012, 07:36:32 PM »
Since the state wasn't there they aren't able to say Martin did this or didn't do that, but the state, it would seem most likely, will try to put the best spin on anything he did or didn't do.

I agree with you. I just don't see how they will be able to support their claims.

Offline cboldt

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1262
  • Rate Post +0/-0
Re: Immunity Hearing: Stand Your Ground and/or Self-Defense
« Reply #40 on: August 16, 2012, 07:48:33 PM »
I don't follow you because 0.41 is quite explicit in saying That unless is my whole point.  Even if Zimmerman is deemed by the judge to be the initial provoker of force against himself, the previous sections of chapter 776, which include .012 and .032, are apparently available to Zimmerman if either of the 2 unless conditions (a) and (b) are found to apply.  You haven't addressed the issue of why they don't.

I addressed it.  You didn't understand my explanation.

.041 has a mess of language following its own "unless."  It doesn't say "unless 776.012 or .013 or .031 applies."  If it did, I think that, it wouldn't make sense, IMO.  It wouldn't make sense because it would be saying "An aggressor can;t avail himself of the preceding sections unless he can avail himself of the preceding sections."  Which is the wording you are imputing via your application of "unless."

I'm not saying a person stuck in .041 can't be justified in using force for self defense.  I expressly said that person CAN be found justified in using force in self defense.  But that justification has to be by the terms of .041.

.041 has a self contained self defense justification for a person who provokes the use of force.  It's different from the self defense justification in .012, .013 and .031, all of which are available to those who don't provoke the use of force.

Offline RickyJim

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1580
  • Rate Post +0/-0
Re: Immunity Hearing: Stand Your Ground and/or Self-Defense
« Reply #41 on: August 16, 2012, 07:57:23 PM »
I agree with you. I just don't see how they will be able to support their claims.

If you check the thread on unreleased discovery material, it seems that Bernie de la Rionda and friends had another stab at Witness 2 in an interview that has not been released yet.  That is the one who thought, at one time, she saw shadows running.  Bernie mentioned this again at the second bond hearing as some sort of proof that Zimmerman chased Martin.  I know it sounds ridiculous but that may be, along with Zimmerman's testimony, the entire prosecution case.  It is inconceivable to me that DeeDee will make an appearance in court.  They can't drop the case until after the Republican Convention in Tampa.  If they do it after that, riots might help the Republicans in November.

Offline JW

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 71
  • Rate Post +0/-0
Re: Immunity Hearing: Stand Your Ground and/or Self-Defense
« Reply #42 on: August 16, 2012, 08:07:05 PM »
If you check the thread on unreleased discovery material, it seems that Bernie de la Rionda and friends had another stab at Witness 2 in an interview that has not been released yet.  That is the one who thought, at one time, she saw shadows running.  Bernie mentioned this again at the second bond hearing as some sort of proof that Zimmerman chased Martin.  I know it sounds ridiculous but that may be, along with Zimmerman's testimony, the entire prosecution case.  It is inconceivable to me that DeeDee will make an appearance in court.  They can't drop the case until after the Republican Convention in Tampa.  If they do it after that, riots might help the Republicans in November.

Thanks for that info. Makes a little more sense now.

Offline RickyJim

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1580
  • Rate Post +0/-0
Re: Immunity Hearing: Stand Your Ground and/or Self-Defense
« Reply #43 on: August 16, 2012, 08:13:43 PM »
I addressed it.  You didn't understand my explanation.

.041 has a mess of language following its own "unless."  It doesn't say "unless 776.012 or .013 or .031 applies."  If it did, I think that, it wouldn't make sense, IMO.  It wouldn't make sense because it would be saying "An aggressor can;t avail himself of the preceding sections unless he can avail himself of the preceding sections."  Which is the wording you are imputing via your application of "unless."

I'm not saying a person stuck in .041 can't be justified in using force for self defense.  I expressly said that person CAN be found justified in using force in self defense.  But that justification has to be by the terms of .041.

.041 has a self contained self defense justification for a person who provokes the use of force.  It's different from the self defense justification in .012, .013 and .031, all of which are available to those who don't provoke the use of force.

So what does "The justification described in the preceding sections of this chapter is not available .....unless mean?  If it doesn't mean that if (a) or (b) hold, then the preceding sections, .01 to .040, are available to Zimmerman, then what did the person who wrote the law have in mind?  Why hasn't the law been thrown out or amended to make sense?
« Last Edit: August 16, 2012, 08:17:30 PM by RickyJim »

Offline cboldt

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1262
  • Rate Post +0/-0
Re: Immunity Hearing: Stand Your Ground and/or Self-Defense
« Reply #44 on: August 16, 2012, 08:29:00 PM »
So what does "The justification described in the preceding sections of this chapter is not available .....unless mean?  If it doesn't mean that if (a) or (b) hold, then the preceding sections, .01 to .040, are available to Zimmerman, then what did the person who wrote the law have in mind?  Why hasn't the law been thrown out or amended to make sense?

It does mean "unless (a) or (b)".  It does not mean "unless .012, .013, .031."  IOW, it means that the use of force is not justified [to one who provokes], unless (a) or (b).  The criteria in (a) and (b) are more restrictive, in a sense, than the criteria in .012, .013, and .031.  One who provokes is not entitled to "stand ground and use force," but must either try to extricate or capitulate.  IOW, a person who provokes must attempt to extricate, or must de-escalate the use of force - and THAT just to obtain the right to use force in self defense.

A person who provokes the use of force is not justified in the use of force in self defense, unless (a) or (b), and if (a) or (b), then their use of force in self defense is justified.

 

Site Meter
click
tracking