May 23, 2012 -- 2:19PM, teilhard wrote:

One of the truly WEIRD Things in these Discussions of this Case is that The Defenders of George "Night Stalker" Zimmerman's Actions on that FATAL Night seem to be perfectly content with Florida's "Shoot-Anybody-Who-Scares-You" Law ... and its Implications ...

If by "The Defenders of George 'Night Stalker' Zimmerman's Actions" you are referring to people such as me and others who have pointed out the problems in the prosecutor's case, then you are absolutely wrong. 

May 23, 2012 -- 2:20PM, teilhard wrote:

So, then ... Please ENLIGHTEN us ...

May 23, 2012 -- 2:18PM, mindis1 wrote:

So, are you trying to demonstrate that you also don't know what the word "evidence" means.  

I suspect you have already sufficiently demonstrated that, no further demonstration needed.

Of course, that's a number of hours in law school.

Let’s start with the issue of relevance. Evidence in a case must be relevant to a legal issue in the case. That is, evidence must have probative value: evidence must play a necessary role in proving or disproving (an element of) the legal issue(s) in a case.

I asked:

Does anyone know of evidence that Zimmerman did not reasonably believe that such force as he used was necessary to prevent serious injury to himself?

Such evidence, if there were any, is a necessary component in refuting Zimmerman’s self-defense defense, unless there is evidence that he did something to provoke Martin to use force against him.

Instead of noting any such evidence, you asked the question:

Does anyone know of evidence that Trayvon Martin did not reasonably believe that such force as he (allegedly) used was necessary to prevent serious injury to himself ... ???

Obviously an answer to your question, regardless of what the answer might be, isn’t relevant to any legal issue in the case of Florida v. Zimmerman. Right? The “evidence” you speak of is not evidence in that or any other case.

Get it?

IOW, The (so-called) "Stand-Your-Ground-Law" is in FACT essentially a defacto License to Hunt-and-Shoot other Persons ...

Our Minnesota GOP-Majority Legislature tried but failed to Pass exactly the same Law recently in Minnesota ...

*shudder* ...

May 24, 2012 -- 3:29PM, mindis1 wrote:

May 23, 2012 -- 5:16PM, Tpaine wrote:

May 23, 2012 -- 2:12PM, mindis1 wrote:

So, several people here, as well as the authors of Florida’s “stand your ground” law, have indicated that the act of Zimmerman “following” Martin constitutes Zimmerman’s provocation of Martin to use force against Zimmerman, thus disqualifying Zimmerman as acting in self-defense under Florida law. This is despite the fact that in at least two publicized cases dismissed under Florida’s “stand your ground” law, the killers pursued their victims prior to killing. (1.  news.findlaw.com/apnews/54dce113ea424c8d... 2. www.miamiherald.com/2012/03/24/2710297/s... )

The act of provoking another person to engage in an altercation would have to be a particularly overt and egregious act, would it not? I have never been provoked into using force against another person, and I have never provoked anyone to use force against me. It isn’t a commonplace kind of act. 

In fact, the act of provoking another person to use force against oneself would itself be an illegal act, regardless of what might happen afterward. Right?

But no one seems to know of any evidence that Zimmerman actually performed such an act that constitutes a provocation of Martin to use force against Zimmerman.  Right?

My problem with the Florida "Stand Your Ground" Law is that it allows a judge, not a jury to dismiss charges against Greyston Garcia, and Anthony Gonzalez both of whom pursued and killed people, but a 31-year-old woman, Marissa Alexander, gets a 20 year prison sentence for firing a warning shot to keep her abusive husband from attacking her. The judge said the "Stand Your Ground" law didn't apply because she could have run out of the house. Since when does the phrase stand your ground mean run away, and why were Garcia and Gonzalez not required to run away instead of killing their adversaries? Link

I have that same problem, among others. Florida’s Supreme Court has found that the application of the “stand your ground” law, and in particular a self-defense defense under this law, is indeed a matter of law, not a matter of fact, thus for a judge, not a jury, to decide. (I’d say the court’s holding here is correct.)

Given this, it is quite likely that if this particular case does go to trial and result in a conviction of Zimmerman, a judge will eventually overturn the conviction.

In many kinds of ordinary circumstances, the law puts prosecutors in a nearly impossible position for proving a defendant’s guilt.

It’s a bad law in several different respects, and it won’t be struck down on constitutional grounds. What would be unfortunate would be to convict Zimmerman as though it’s a good law, while innumerable others walk free.

Did Zimmerman face the threat of imminent death or severe bodily harm as defined in the Florida law on self defense?

Florida

2011 Florida Statutes CHAPTER 776 JUSTIFIABLE USE OF FORCE^[22]

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

May 27, 2012 -- 10:07AM, Marcion wrote:

Did Zimmerman face the threat of imminent death or severe bodily harm as defined in the Florida law on self defense?...

No. According to that law you quoted Zimmerman just had to leave to remove the threat of any more injury. Besides, the law doesn't come into effect since Zimmerman instigated and escalated the event. To avoid any injury or threat of death he should have stayed in the car.