"Zimmerman Confronted Martin"

General Buck Turgidson said:
You are operating under the assumption that "confronting" a person is sufficient "provocation" to justify the use of force against the confrontor. I don't think that is necessarily true. You also discount the exceptions to the rule, particularly the exception in section (a).

If the intent was to get around the STG law, the affidavit would have been much more clear on the confrontation and would not have used the passive voice to describe the physical altercation.
Click to expand...

exception (a) supports STY. you are wrong.
 
SmarterThanYou said:
not necessarily. IMO, the prosecutor isn't even looking at subsection (a) because none of if applies. By stating in the affidavit that 'zimmerman confronted martin', it allows her to substantiate the charge and rebut his self defense claim,.
Click to expand...


Not really. Like I said, you assume the act of confronting another person is sufficient provocation to eliminate a claim of self defense. I don't think that is necessarily true. If I confront you to question you about something and you respond by punching me in the face, I don't lose my right to defend myself against your physical attack, unless my confrontation. Moreover, even if I did lose my right to defend myself, if you attack me with such force that I reasonably fear imminent death or great bodily harm and use all reasonable means short of using deadly force to defend myself without success, I can use deadly force against you.
 
Yurt said:
i really need to explain something so simple to you? exception (a) gives zimmerman a defense, even if he started the confrontation.
Click to expand...


I understand that. That's why merely stating that Zimmerman confronted Martin is not sufficient to get around the SYG law, if that is the purpose of having that statement in there. The could have charged Zimmerman without that statement in the charging affidavit.
 
General Buck Turgidson said:
Not really. Like I said, you assume the act of confronting another person is sufficient provocation to eliminate a claim of self defense.
Click to expand...
that is you assuming that i'm assuming something. this is not correct.

General Buck Turgidson said:
I don't think that is necessarily true. If I confront you to question you about something and you respond by punching me in the face, I don't lose my right to defend myself against your physical attack, unless my confrontation. Moreover, even if I did lose my right to defend myself, if you attack me with such force that I reasonably fear imminent death or great bodily harm and use all reasonable means short of using deadly force to defend myself without success, I can use deadly force against you.
Click to expand...
If you 'confront' me by asking a question, you are not confronting me physically, which is what is required by this law. people can't seem to get this idea in their heads that when the law speaks of confrontation, they are talking physical confrontation.
 
Yurt said:
i think the affidavit is weak.
Click to expand...

Special prosecutor Angela Corey, who was appointed by Gov. Rick Scott to investigate the case, said she will ensure that the judge or jury deciding the case will get only "the relevant, admissible evidence on which they can then base their decisions."

The judge found there is probable cause for a trial.
 
Rana said:
Special prosecutor Angela Corey, who was appointed by Gov. Rick Scott to investigate the case, said she will ensure that the judge or jury deciding the case will get only "the relevant, admissible evidence on which they can then base their decisions."

The judge found there is probable cause for a trial.
Click to expand...

do you have a link for the judge finding probable cause? he was only charged two days ago.
 
SmarterThanYou said:
that is you assuming that i'm assuming something. this is not correct.

If you 'confront' me by asking a question, you are not confronting me physically, which is what is required by this law. people can't seem to get this idea in their heads that when the law speaks of confrontation, they are talking physical confrontation.
Click to expand...

The law uses the term "provoked." The affidavit uses the term "confronted." I don't think that the use of the term "confronted" in the affidavit necessarily implies a physical confrontation, particularly where it is immediately followed by "a struggle ensured." If the point of "Zimmerman confronted Martin" in the affidavit was to put Zimmerman's actions outside the scope of the SYG law, they could have been much more clear about that by using the term "provoked" that the law uses.
 
Rana said:
Special prosecutor Angela Corey, who was appointed by Gov. Rick Scott to investigate the case, said she will ensure that the judge or jury deciding the case will get only "the relevant, admissible evidence on which they can then base their decisions."

The judge found there is probable cause for a trial.
Click to expand...
and another person who doesn't understand how the judicial system works. big shock.
 
General Buck Turgidson said:
The law uses the term "provoked." The affidavit uses the term "confronted." I don't think that the use of the term "confronted" in the affidavit necessarily implies a physical confrontation, particularly where it is immediately followed by "a struggle ensured." If the point of "Zimmerman confronted Martin" in the affidavit was to put Zimmerman's actions outside the scope of the SYG law, they could have been much more clear about that by using the term "provoked" that the law uses.
Click to expand...
if the affidavit only says confronted, i'm hard pressed to see how a murder charge can be pursued unless it's strictly based upon unjustified societal outrage.
 
Herr found the affidavit legally sufficient to establish probable cause and ordered Zimmerman to appear for arraignment — when defendants formally enter a plea — on May 29 before Circuit Judge Jessica Recksiedler.

apparently that is the way it works in FL
 
Yurt said:
Herr found the affidavit legally sufficient to establish probable cause and ordered Zimmerman to appear for arraignment — when defendants formally enter a plea — on May 29 before Circuit Judge Jessica Recksiedler.

apparently that is the way it works in FL
Click to expand...

She also only had to reveal enough evidence in her affadavit, not all the evidence., to get the ruling. Dershowitz uses hyperbole!
 
SmarterThanYou said:
and another person who doesn't understand how the judicial system works. big shock.
Click to expand...

How is it I don't understand? But yes, I am not a lawyer, judge or have any ties to the system, but I know each state works differentlly, now tell me what you know that I don't?

Ms. Corey only had to reveal enough evidence in her affadavit to get a ruling. It will go to trial and then the defense can rule to have it dismissed based on their evidence. It proceeds from there, or they can plea bargain before the trial. We will see what happens.
 
Rana said:
How is it I don't understand? But yes, I am not a lawyer, judge or have any ties to the system, but I know each state works differentlly, now tell me what you know that I don't?

Ms. Corey only had to reveal enough evidence in her affadavit to get a ruling. It will go to trial and then the defense can rule to have it dismissed based on their evidence. It proceeds from there, or they can plea bargain before the trial. We will see what happens.
Click to expand...

the prosecutor doesn't get to decide who sees what. she/he has to follow all the disclosure rules, meaning that the defense gets EVERYTHING she has. Also, the judge is the final arbitor of what the prosecution and defense can use as evidence and what the jury will ultimately see. The judges job is to ensure a fair and impartial trial.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top