• Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more

Trayvon Martin, Vigilante Justice

Status
Not open for further replies.
I apologize for being repetitious, but I am just gobsmacked at how the Florida law seems to be interpreted. It looks like putting the burden of proof on the loser (i.e., the dead person) to show that they were not putting the ab initio presumptive "defendant" in fear of so-called "great bodily harm."

Now, I am not a lawyer, but I've been unable to find a definition of "great bodily harm" in the Florida law code (by the expedient of searching the Florida law code for the phrase, "great bodily harm", which returns some hits on laws, but not on any definition). My frame of reference is the Old Dominion, the Mother of Presidents, Virginia (bombast intentional), in which (as far as I know, IANAL) the following still holds:

A person who reasonably apprehends bodily harm by another is privileged to exercise reasonable force to repel the assault. However, the amount of force used to defend oneself must not be excessive and must be reasonable in relation to the perceived threat. (Diffendal v. Commonwealth, 1989)

Florida law seems more law-less than old episodes of "Gunsmoke" in comparison.
 
applecorped said:
http://www.newjerseynewsroom.com/nation/new-black-panther-party-calls-for-bounty-on-zimmerman

The New Black Panther Party is offering a $10,000 bounty for the person who captures the Florida neighborhood 28-year-old watch captain who shot and killed Martin, an unarmed teenager, last month, according to The Atlanta-Journal Constitution.
"He should be fearful for his life," said Mikhail Muhammad, the Party’s new leader. "You can't keep killing black children."
Click to expand...

Just to be clear, the posters say Dead or Alive...
 
Finn McR said:
I apologize for being repetitious, but I am just gobsmacked at how the Florida law seems to be interpreted. It looks like putting the burden of proof on the loser (i.e., the dead person) to show that they were not putting the ab initio presumptive "defendant" in fear of so-called "great bodily harm."

Now, I am not a lawyer, but I've been unable to find a definition of "great bodily harm" in the Florida law code (by the expedient of searching the Florida law code for the phrase, "great bodily harm", which returns some hits on laws, but not on any definition). My frame of reference is the Old Dominion, the Mother of Presidents, Virginia (bombast intentional), in which (as far as I know, IANAL) the following still holds:

A person who reasonably apprehends bodily harm by another is privileged to exercise reasonable force to repel the assault. However, the amount of force used to defend oneself must not be excessive and must be reasonable in relation to the perceived threat. (Diffendal v. Commonwealth, 1989)

Florida law seems more law-less than old episodes of "Gunsmoke" in comparison.
Click to expand...

This is really a standard self defense case, imo. The police investigation basically concluded that Zimmerman unlawfully killed Martin. That is, he used too much force. Thus the manslaughter recommendation.
 
Dancing David said:
In this case:
-the accused claimed self defense
-the available evidence seemed to support that claim
-witness accounts seemed to support that claim
-the Sanford police department held Zimmerman in custody while they interviewed him
-they did not feel that an arrest at the time was warranted due to it 'looking' like self defense

-the SPD decided not to arrest him but passed the information onto the DA
Click to expand...

Hey, can you provide info on the homicide detective that interviewed Mr. Zimmerman? I've missed out on that.

Thanks
 
LTC8K6 said:
This is really a standard self defense case, imo. The police investigation basically concluded that Zimmerman unlawfully killed Martin. That is, he used too much force. Thus the manslaughter recommendation.
Click to expand...

Serious question: In your opinion or better knowledge, why no arrest?
 
LTC8K6 said:
Except that it's felony, I believe, to have such a bounty. :)

Zimmerman hasn't lost his rights.

If he'd gunned down 11 children while smiling, on HD video, he'd still be entitled to a trial.
Click to expand...

He's already guilty of the most heinous crimes....to some. String him up!
 
LTC8K6 said:
If he'd gunned down 11 children while smiling, on HD video, he'd still be entitled to a trial.
Click to expand...
And idiots might want to kill him for that too. He'd still be entited to a trial as he is now. Unless you are just hiding behind "humor" again. In which case, :D :D :D, right?
 
ltc8k6 said:
they don't make lamp posts like they used to.
Click to expand...
:biggrin: :biggrin: :biggrin:

It's funny to laugh about murder. It really highlights why GZ is innocent. If idiots are engaged in mob justice then he must be innocent, right?
 
Last edited:
WildCat said:
This is the issue now, yes. Whether what transpired in the fight warranted the shooting.

I'm done arguing with people who are claiming all the evidence is faked, there wasn't a fight, Zimmerman tried to detain Martin, etc etc. I can do that over in Conspiracy Theories.
Click to expand...

Well let's see; I've seen the "detain" theory floating about, but this is the first time I've heard about evidence being "faked" or that there wasn't a fight. I am glad you're done arguing with those people...wherever they are...
 
applecorped said:
Thanks. I thought of you the entire time.
Click to expand...
:D :D :D Damn you are killing me. Nothing like ignoring the subject at hand and laughing about a lynch mob as if that proves something about the innocence of GZ. Good logic.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Share this page

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom