Second degree murder

[Damocles]

But the standard is the person who killed so, was it reasonable for a person suffering from a severe anxiety disorder to belive that his wife, who he just had a normal argument with, to belive that wife was about to kill him?

No, it would not be reasonable. Reasonable in a legal sense is based on what a "reasonable person" would believe. Hence, the fact that they use the word "reasonable" says that the law isn't like you are presenting here.

Although a "insanity" defense might be applicable, this would not be a "self-defense" killing as the "reasonable person" standard would not apply.

 

[Jarod]

"I reasonably belived those skittles were a gun."

"I reasonably belived that that guy in the turban had a bomb."

It should be worded that "a reasonable person would belive under the circumstances" not "if he or she reasonably belived"

 

[Damocles]

"I reasonably belived those skittles were a gun."

"I reasonably belived that that guy in the turban had a bomb."

It should be worded that "a reasonable person would belive under the circumstances" not "if he or she reasonably belived"

Only if you misunderstand what the word reasonable means in the context of law. It can be referred to in any number of laws based in well established precedent. It literally means what you think it "should" mean.

 

[SmarterthanYou]

Zimmerman was returning to his car after following and then confronting Martin.

A person cannot claim self defense if they instigate a confrontation and then walk away.

this is a false statement. If a person walks away from a confrontation, that ends the confrontation. any further confrontation is dependent upon who initiates that new confrontation.

 

[USFREEDOM911]

"I reasonably belived those skittles were a gun."

"I reasonably belived that that guy in the turban had a bomb."

It should be worded that "a reasonable person would belive under the circumstances" not "if he or she reasonably belived"

Show where theres been a statement regarding:
"I reasonably belived those skittles were a gun."

 

[Jarod]

Only if you misunderstand what the word reasonable means in the context of law. It can be referred to in any number of laws based in well established precedent. It literally means what you think it "should" mean.

I learned that there is a signifigant difference, there is a reason they wrote it the way it was written instead of the way I belive it should have been written. The NRA wanted it written the way it is written, the national association of Prosecutors wanted it written my way..

 

[christiefan915]

1) Following him is not provoking a confrontation, especially if the cops are asking for a description and direction he was headed etc...
2) according to Zimmerman, when the cops told him not to follow Martin, he went back to his car... ie.. he was walking away from Martin

So again... you don't have 'undisputed' evidence that Zimmerman was the one that provoked him.

We also don't have undisputed evidence that GZ was attacked after he started walking away from TM.

 

[Phantasmal]

We also don't have undisputed evidence that GZ was attacked after he started walking away from TM.

I just got a news update, an affidavit filed by investigators states George Zimmerman, profiled, confronted, then fatally shot Trayvon Martin.

 

[zappasguitar]

this is a false statement. If a person walks away from a confrontation, that ends the confrontation. any further confrontation is dependent upon who initiates that new confrontation.

Wrong...if a person initiates a confrontation, then even if he walks away, the person confronted may decide his life was in danger and he may defend himself.

Zimmerman can't claim self defense.

 

[BRUTALITOPS]

Being followed by a mall cop or a soccer mom is in no way analogous to being followed at night, on a street, by a man. You are being totally ridiculous, and if you really had a knife in your face (was this in the sixth grade by a kid who got tired of you following him around calling him chubs?), and you seriously have no problem with someone following you around on the streets, then that's your sickness. Not mine. You have no right in the world to follow me and I will tell you dead serious if you did, you'd have a problem on your hands. I am not kidding. I might even get in my car and run your ass over. Totally serious.

the knife thing i was in college.

and duly noted, I def will not follow you O_O.

 

[BRUTALITOPS]

Also, Grind for you particular you better get off your smug high horse, because I am telling you outright I have no problem killing you if you are following me at night. Is that a victim? No that's a bitch who isn't going to become your victim. Period.

LOL i got it darla... im staying the fuck away from you

 

[BRUTALITOPS]

Yup, I agree. A defense attourny is only going to accept a plea if it's in their clients best interest. If there was no "Stand Your Ground" law in Florida I think there probably would be a plea deal. With it, I think Zimmerman walks.

the thing is, stand your ground happens before the trial, if I am not mistaken. Basically they challenge it, and it goes before to judge, and the judge can throw out the entire case.

So that's likely the first thing to happen, it'll be challenged on stand your ground (I doubt there will be a plea before this hearing), judge will rule, and if he decides stand your ground does not apply, then they go to trial.

 

[SmarterthanYou]

Wrong...if a person initiates a confrontation, then even if he walks away, the person confronted may decide his life was in danger and he may defend himself.

Zimmerman can't claim self defense.

you are wrong. i've discussed this with a few lawyers and they've all said that if you walk away from a verbal confrontation, that confrontation is over. the other person can not then decide his life is in danger.

 

[BRUTALITOPS]

The fact that he got out of his car and followed Trayvon.

do you consider being 50 yards away from someone as a provocation? If someone starts following you at a distance, are you legally allowed to turn around, charge at them, and start wailing on them?

Should no one be followed? Is following someone illegal? Please clarify.

 

[USFREEDOM911]

you are wrong. i've discussed this with a few lawyers and they've all said that if you walk away from a verbal confrontation, that confrontation is over. the other person can not then decide his life is in danger.

I tried to explain this very thing, some time ago.

One of the first CCW classes I took, posed the following scenario:
You're standing in your doorway and are armed (for whatever reason).
Down the street, you see two men approach another man and one of the two men shoots the one that was approached.
The two men then turn and begin walking away.
Are you allowed to use deadly force at any time and if so, when?

Some people are going to be surprised by the correct answers.

 

[BRUTALITOPS]

Suddenly the same guys who lambasted anyone who DARED speculate about this case are now...

SPECULATING about this case.

Ironic, don't ya think?

no it's not ironic. when things are murky, our country and our judicial system defaults to finding one not guilty. The impetus is on those that claim zimmerman murdered trayvon to provide definitive evidence.

 

[SmarterthanYou]

I tried to explain this very thing, some time ago.

One of the first CCW classes I took, posed the following scenario:
You're standing in your doorway and are armed (for whatever reason).
Down the street, you see two men approach another man and one of the two men shoots the one that was approached.
The two men then turn and begin walking away.
Are you allowed to use deadly force at any time and if so, when?

Some people are going to be surprised by the correct answers.

that depends on the state, i'm guessing. here in texas, you would be legally allowed to follow and stop them, using lethal force if necessary.

 

[USFREEDOM911]

that depends on the state, i'm guessing. here in texas, you would be legally allowed to follow and stop them, using lethal force if necessary.

Nope, not unless you have something that I'm not aware of.
Plus; you persuing them, makes you the aggressor and they just might now have the right to defend themselves from you.

 

[BRUTALITOPS]

We also don't have undisputed evidence that GZ was attacked after he started walking away from TM.

zimmerman doesn't need undisputed evidence that he was attacked after walking away. the burden is with the prosecution.

 

[SmarterthanYou]

Nope, not unless you have something that I'm not aware of.
Plus; you persuing them, makes you the aggressor and they just might now have the right to defend themselves from you.

you are correct. i was mixing up two different codes referencing stopping someone immediately after committing a felony and the protection of property statutes.