Will jurors just forget what they heard?

Status
Not open for further replies.
science is not up for debate.


want to pretend he was an adult?

your a fucking idiot for pretending the laws and science don't consider him a child
 
Socrtease said:
However, insignificant injuries go against his claim that Martin's attack was "likely to cause death or great bodily harm". Zimmerman's fear has to be reasonable. The reasonable standard means that the ordinary person, (you or I) would believe that the force being exerted by Martin was going to likely to cause death or great bodily harm. It is a objective standard and NOT Subjective. Zimmerman doesn't get to say "I was more scared than a man in my position would have been".
Click to expand...

So it's your assertion that someone in the middle of an altercation automatically knows how serious his injuries are or are going to be?
Do you gauge it by how much blood you THINK is flowing down the back of your head?
 
Professor Baxter said:
Zimmerman did not claim that almost immediately, he felt Martin's actions were likely to cause death or great bodily harm. Zimmerman claims that he reached for his gun and shot after Martin made a move towards his gun. If you establish that Zimmerman's first and only defensive act was to grab his gun and shoot, it makes that claim seem very doubtful.

Martin was supposedly completely owning him to the degree that he was smothering him and Zimmerman could not even open his mouth or strike Martin once. Then Martin made a move towards the gun and Zimmerman was quick and effective enough to draw and shoot without Martin getting any dna on the gun? Seems like a rather improbable change of events to me.
Click to expand...

Do you remember the testimony that any DNA could have been washed away by the rain or do you only pay attention to the parts that support your preconceived opinion?
 
Professor Baxter said:
Florida Standard Jury Instruction (Criminal) 3.6(f).
Click to expand...

So tell me which section or subsection you feel goes against Zimmerman.

http://www.lyonssnyder.com/law-blog/self-defense-jury-instruction-in-florida/

3.6(f) JUSTIFIABLE USE OF DEADLY FORCE

Because there are many defenses applicable to self-defense, give only those parts of the instructions that are required by the evidence.

Read in all cases.

An issue in this case is whether the defendant acted in self-defense. It is a defense to the offense with which (defendant) is charged if the [death of] [injury to] (victim) resulted from the justifiable use of deadly force.

Definition.

“Deadly force” means force likely to cause death or great bodily harm.

Give if applicable. § 782.02, Fla. Stat.

The use of deadly force is justifiable only if the defendant reasonably believes that the force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to [himself] [herself] while resisting:

1. another’s attempt to murder [him] [her], or

2. any attempt to commit (applicable felony) upon [him] [her], or

3. any attempt to commit (applicable felony) upon or in any dwelling, residence, or vehicle occupied by [him] [her].

Insert and define applicable felony that defendant alleges victim attempted to commit.

Give if applicable. §§ 776.012, 776.031, Fla. Stat.

A person is justified in using deadly force if [he] [she] reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent

1. imminent death or great bodily harm to [himself] [herself] or another, or

2. the imminent commission of (applicable forcible felony) against [himself] [herself] or another.

Insert and define applicable forcible felony that defendant alleges victim was about to commit. Forcible felonies are listed in § 776.08, Fla. Stat.

Aggressor. § 776.041, Fla. Stat.
However, the use of deadly force is not justifiable if you find:

Give only if the defendant is charged with an independent forcible felony. See Giles v. State, 831 So. 2d 1263 (Fla. 4th DCA 2002).

1. (Defendant) was attempting to commit, committing, or escaping after the commission of (applicable forcible felony); or

Define applicable forcible felony. Define after paragraph 2 if both paragraphs 1 and 2 are given. Forcible felonies are listed in § 776.08, Fla. Stat.

2. (Defendant) initially provoked the use of force against [himself] [herself], unless:

a. The force asserted toward the defendant was so great that [he] [she] reasonably believed that [he] [she] was in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm and had exhausted every reasonable means to escape the danger, other than using deadly force on (assailant).

b. In good faith, the defendant withdrew from physical contact with (assailant) and clearly indicated to (assailant) that [he] [she] wanted to withdraw and stop the use of deadly force, but (assailant) continued or resumed the use of force.

Force in resisting a law enforcement officer § 776.051(1), Fla. Stat.

A person is not justified in using force to resist an arrest by a law enforcement officer, or to resist a law enforcement officer who is engaged in the execution of a legal duty, if the law enforcement officer was acting in good faith and he or she is known, or reasonably appears, to be a law enforcement officer.

Give if applicable.

However, if an officer uses excessive force to make an arrest, then a person is justified in the use of reasonable force to defend [himself] [herself] (or another), but only to the extent [he] [she] reasonably believes such force is necessary. See § 776.012, Fla. Stat.; Ivester v. State, 398 So. 2d 926 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981); Jackson v. State, 463 So. 2d 372 (Fla. 5th DCA 1985).

In some instances, the instructions applicable to §§ 776.012, 776.031, or 776.041, Fla. Stat., may need to be given in connection with this instruction.

Read in all cases.

In deciding whether defendant was justified in the use of deadly force, you must judge [him] [her] by the circumstances by which [he] [she] was surrounded at the time the force was used. The danger facing the defendant need not have been actual; however, to justify the use of deadly force, the appearance of danger must have been so real that a reasonably cautious and prudent person under the same circumstances would have believed that the danger could be avoided only through the use of that force. Based upon appearances, the defendant must have actually believed that the danger was real.

No duty to retreat. § 776.013(3), Fla. Stat. See Novak v. State 974 So. 2d 520 (Fla. 4th DCA 2008) regarding unlawful activity. There is no duty to retreat where the defendant was not engaged in any unlawful activity other than the crime(s) for which the defendant asserts the justification.

If the defendant [was not engaged in an unlawful activity and] was attacked in any place where [he] [she] had a right to be, [he] [she] had no duty to retreat and had the right to stand [his] [her] ground and meet force with force, including deadly force, if [he] [she] reasonably believed that it was necessary to do so to prevent death or great bodily harm to [himself] [herself] [another] or to prevent the commission of a forcible felony.

Define applicable forcible felony from list in § 776.08, Fla. Stat. that defendant alleges victim was about to commit.

Presumption of Fear (dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle). Give if applicable. § 776.013(2)(a)-(d), Fla. Stat.

If the defendant was in a(n)[dwelling] [residence] [occupied vehicle] where [he] [she] had a right to be, [he] [she] is presumed to have had a reasonable fear of imminent death or great bodily harm to [himself] [herself] [another] if (victim) had [unlawfully and forcibly entered] [removed or attempted to remove another person against that person’s will from] that [dwelling] [residence] [occupied vehicle] and the defendant had reason to believe that had occurred. The defendant had no duty to retreat under such circumstances.

Exceptions to Presumption of Fear. § 776.013(2)(a)-(d), Fla. Stat. Give as applicable.

The presumption of reasonable fear of imminent death or great bodily harm does not apply if:

a. the person against whom the defensive force is used has the right to be in [or is a lawful resident of the [dwelling] [residence]] [the vehicle], such as an owner, lessee, or titleholder, and there is not an injunction for protection from domestic violence or a written pretrial supervision order of no contact against that person; or

b. the person or persons sought to be removed is a child or grandchild, or is otherwise in the lawful custody or under the lawful guardianship of, the person against whom the defensive force is used; or

c. the person who uses defensive force is engaged in an unlawful activity or is using the [dwelling] [residence] [occupied vehicle] to further an unlawful activity; or

d. the person against whom the defensive force is used is a law enforcement officer, who enters or attempts to enter a [dwelling] [residence] [vehicle] in the performance of [his] [her] official duties and the officer identified [himself] [herself] in accordance with any applicable law or the person using the force knew or reasonably should have known that the person entering or attempting to enter was a law enforcement officer.

If requested, give definition of “law enforcement officer” from § 943.10(14), Fla. Stat.,

§ 776.013(4), Fla. Stat.

A person who unlawfully and by force enters or attempts to enter another’s [dwelling] [residence] [occupied vehicle] is presumed to be doing so with the intent to commit an unlawful act involving force or violence.

Definitions. Give if applicable. § 776.013(5), Fla. Stat.

As used with regard to self defense:

“Dwelling” means a building or conveyance of any kind, including any attached porch, whether the building or conveyance is temporary or permanent or mobile or immobile, which has a roof over it, including a tent, and is designed to be occupied by people lodging therein at night

“Residence” means a dwelling in which a person resides either temporarily or permanently or is visiting as an invited guest.

“Vehicle” means a conveyance of any kind, whether or not motorized, which is designed to transport people or property.

Prior threats. Give if applicable.

If you find that the defendant who because of threats or prior difficulties with (victim) had reasonable grounds to believe that [he] [she] was in danger of death or great bodily harm at the hands of (victim), then the defendant had the right to arm [himself] [herself]. However, the defendant cannot justify the use of deadly force, if after arming [himself] [herself] [he] [she] renewed [his] [her] difficulty with (victim) when [he] [she] could have avoided the difficulty, although as previously explained if the defendant was not engaged in an unlawful activity and was attacked in any place where [he] [she] had a right to be, [he] [she] had no duty to retreat.

Reputation of victim. Give if applicable.

If you find that (victim) had a reputation of being a violent and dangerous person and that [his] [her] reputation was known to the defendant, you may consider this fact in determining whether the actions of the defendant were those of a reasonable person in dealing with an individual of that reputation.

Physical abilities. Read in all cases.

In considering the issue of self-defense, you may take into account the relative physical abilities and capacities of the defendant and (victim).

Read in all cases.

If in your consideration of the issue of self-defense you have a reasonable doubt on the question of whether the defendant was justified in the use of deadly force, you should find the defendant not guilty.

However, if from the evidence you are convinced that the defendant was not justified in the use of deadly force, you should find [him] [her] guilty if all the elements of the charge have been proved.
 
USFREEDOM911 said:
Do you remember the testimony that any DNA could have been washed away by the rain or do you only pay attention to the parts that support your preconceived opinion?
Click to expand...

No, I had not heard that testimony. It's very interesting. I also did not hear Zimmerman claim that there was any sort of struggle for the gun or that Martin ever touched the gun. But what if Martin did touch the gun? Hmmm? You and people like sf, who ARE INVESTED in the idea of Zimmerman's innocence, continue to ask me to believe that something happened contrary to Zimmerman's claims, but to entertain that it might negatively impact Zimmerman's case is speculation.

Zimmerman seemed to claim he was suddenly able to draw and shoot cleanly, while for some time prior Martin so dominated Zimmerman that Zimmerman could not land a punch, effectively reverse positions or, some claim, even open his mouth. Still seems like an improbable reversal.
 
evince said:
science is not up for debate.


want to pretend he was an adult?

your a fucking idiot for pretending the laws and science don't consider him a child
Click to expand...

So in your psychotic fantasy world, there can only be two possibilities.
Either you're an adult, or you're a child.

:palm:
 
SmarterthanYou said:
my argument isn't about whether I believe the cop or not. my argument is how can a lawyers own witness have his testimony thrown out because it undermined his case.
Click to expand...
The prosecutor didn't elicit the testimony. The cop said during cross that Zimmerman was truthful, or appeared to be telling the truth. Hell, a long time ago I acquitted a guy based on the prosecutor attesting to the victims veracity in closing argument. Judge ruled a mistrial, caused by bad act of the prosecutor, acquittal.
 
Superfreak said:
No, i mean for a minute or two... You really should experiment with this, you seem to think it is harder than it is.
Click to expand...

Your wife said I could try it on her tonight. j/k... YOU SET ME UP! Twice!

Yeah, I don't think you would achieve that 1 time out 10, with two people of relatively equal strength and in the rain.

Anyway, still it's not one thing or the other but the entirety of his claims. Again, Zimmerman was getting owned so hard, Trayvon saw his gun and moved for it, but Zimmerman was able to draw and shoot cleanly. It does not add up.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top