George Zimmerman/Trayvon Martin

[delldude]

Under the influence of a controlled substance is how it is. Dude had previously gotten stoned unless he was held against his will in a Mini-Cooper while 4 guys smoked blunts for several hours. No one said anything about it making one aggressive. May cause a lack of judgement regarding a violent action.

 

[delldude]

He was not 'stoned'. OH for example the limits would have to exceed 2.0 ng/ml and 50 ng/ml respectively. Also, most addiction specialists have already concluded that in study after study it has been shown that marijuana typically does not make users more aggressive.

Seems he'd be stoned in Colorado.

The Senate passed House Bill 1325 on a 24-11 vote and it now heads to Gov. John Hickenlooper who has said he supports a marijuana DUI framework for the state.
Under HB 1325, drivers caught with 5 nanograms of THC, the psychoactive ingredient in marijuana which produces the "high" sensation, in their blood would be considered too stoned to drive and could be ticketed similarly to a person who was considered too drunk to drive.

 

[eolesen]

Nah, Tree is right. Never argue with a liberal about the effects of smoking dope.

1.5ng is below the proposed limit in Colorado. And to be clear, I didn't say he was stoned. The THC levels are just hard evidence that he'd been smoking weed at some point before his death, and wasn't the sweet, innocent scared child that some tried to make him out to be.

But it was already known he was smoking weed. And that he was a thief. The defense just chose not to use that against him at trial.

http://spectator.org/blog/2013/07/15/trayvon-crime-school-miami

 

[delldude]

Nah, Tree is right. Never argue with a liberal about the effects of smoking dope.

1.5ng is below the proposed limit in Colorado. And to be clear, I didn't say he was stoned. The THC levels are just hard evidence that he'd been smoking weed at some point before his death, and wasn't the sweet, innocent scared child that some tried to make him out to be.

But it was already known he was smoking weed. And that he was a thief. The defense just chose not to use that against him at trial.

http://spectator.org...me-school-miami

The THC-COOH is the bingo item at 7.3 nG........it is metabolized THC.

 

[Ms Tree]

Jury instructions

Go to time mark 14:00

http://youtu.be/1FQBNFSTj7k

"A person is justified in using deadly force if he reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself.

In deciding whether George Zimmerman was justified in the use of deadly force, you must judge him by the circumstances by which he was surrounded at the time the force was used. The danger facing George Zimmerman 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, George Zimmerman must have actually believed that the danger was real.

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

Now where have I heard this before. OH yea. FL statute 776.013

A person who is not engaged in an unlawful activity and who is attacked in any other place where he or she has a right to be has no duty to retreat and has the right to stand his or her ground and meet force with force, including deadly force if he or she reasonably believes it is necessary to do so to prevent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the commission of a forcible felony.

I wonder how that made it into the jury instructions as a justification for use of deadly force in public. I guess the judge and both lawyers were ignorant of the law as well.

 

[Dog Wonder]

Yeah, you got it.....a stoned kid sucker punches a guy with 5 black belts who drops his guard while taking out his phone to notify police.

I thought your hero was grounded and pounded. Good imagination though.

 

[muff daddy]

Jury instructions

Go to time mark 14:00





Now where have I heard this before. OH yea. FL statute 776.013



I wonder how that made it into the jury instructions as a justification for use of deadly force in public. I guess the judge and both lawyers were ignorant of the law as well.

You too.

Under Florida law, there is another set of circumstances in which deadly force is permitted is:

(2) Under those circumstances permitted pursuant to s. 776.013​

The cross-references is to a statute involving self-defense in one’s home or automobile. Neither of these is relevant to the Martin-Zimmerman case.

Fla. Stat. § 776.013. Home protection; use of deadly force; presumption of fear of death or great bodily harm
(1) A person is presumed to have held a reasonable fear of imminent peril of death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another when using defensive force that is intended or likely to cause death or great bodily harm to another if:
(a) The person against whom the defensive force was used was in the process of unlawfully and forcefully entering, or had unlawfully and forcibly entered, a dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle, or if that person had removed or was attempting to remove another against that person’s will from the dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle; and
(b The person who uses defensive force knew or had reason to believe that an unlawful and forcible entry or unlawful and forcible act was occurring or had occurred.
(2) The presumption set forth in subsection (1) 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, or 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
© The person who uses defensive force is engaged in an unlawful activity or is using the dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle to further an unlawful activity; or
(d) The person against whom the defensive force is used is a law enforcement officer, as defined in s. 943.10(14), who enters or attempts to enter a dwelling, residence, or vehicle in the performance of his or her official duties and the officer identified himself or herself in accordance with any applicable law or the person using force knew or reasonably should have known that the person entering or attempting to enter was a law enforcement officer.​

The home/automobile law allows use of deadly force against intruders who unlawfully enter the victim’s home or occupied automobile. The law makes specific exceptions if the intruder has a legal right to be there, or is lawfully exercising child custody rights, or if the person in the home/automobile is engaged in illegal activity, or if the intruder is law enforcement officer who has identified himself as such.
Again, the home/automobile provisions have no relevance to Martin/Zimmerman case.

Florida law provides some protections for persons who have lawfully used force against a criminal attack.

Fla. Stat. § 776.032. Immunity from criminal prosecution and civil action for justifiable use of force
(1) A person who uses force as permitted in s. 776.012 is justified in using such force and is immune from criminal prosecution and civil action for the use of such force, unless the person against whom force was used is a law enforcement officer, as defined in s. 943.10(14), who was acting in the performance of his or her official duties and the officer identified himself or herself in accordance with any applicable law or the person using force knew or reasonably should have known that the person was a law enforcement officer. As used in this subsection, the term “criminal prosecution” includes arresting, detaining in custody, and charging or prosecuting the defendant.​

So if a person used force lawfully in self-defense against a criminal attacker, then his actions are justified (not merely excused), and he may not be arrested, criminally prosecuted or sued. It seems obvious that persons who have obeyed the law should not be arrested or prosecuted. Nor should criminals or a criminal’s relatives be able to harass the victim by filing a civil suit.

(2) A law enforcement agency may use standard procedures for investigating the use of force as described in subsection (1), but the agency may not arrest the person for using force unless it determines that there is probable cause that the force that was used was unlawful.​

The Sanford police said this is why they did not arrest Zimmerman: they did not have probable cause to believe that he had broken the law. In fact, the statute does not change the law, but it apparently is effective at reminding law enforcement officers of the standard they are required to obey. Regarding arrests, the United States Constitution requires that “The right of the people to be secure in their persons . . . against unreasonable . . . seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the . . . persons . . . to be seized.” As judicially interpreted, the Fourth Amendment does not require a warrant for some arrests, but the probable cause requirement remains enforceable. The normal rule in American law is that a police officer must have “probable cause” in order to arrest someone.

http://www.volokh.co...f-defense-laws/

This is where you are wrong:

Self Defense in Florida: When is Deadly Force Allowed?

There are two primary statutes in Florida outlining when the use of deadly force is justified so as to avoid criminal liability. Under Section 776.012, Florida Statutes (Florida’s “Stand Your Ground” Law), a person is justified in using deadly force (and does not have a duty to retreat) if he or she reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent the imminent commission of a forcible felony or to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another. Under Section 782.02, Florida Statutes, the use of deadly force is further justified when a person is resisting any attempt to murder such person or to commit any felony upon him or her or upon or in any dwelling house in which the person is located.

http://www.husseinan...e-of-force.html

 

[Ms Tree]

Did you read or listen to the jury instructions? Why did she quote .013 and not 012 or .012?

I know you desperately do not want SYG to be part of this case but the judge quoted .013. How much clearer can this be?

 

[muff daddy]

Did you read or listen to the jury instructions? Why did she quote .013 and not 012 or .012?

I know you desperately do not want SYG to be part of this case but the judge quoted .013. How much clearer can this be?

Why then during rebuttal did prosecutor John Guy declare "This case is not about standing your ground".
That language is a standard part of the jury instructions in cases where the defendant claims the use of deadly force is justified.

 

[EastUS1]

Imagine a stoned kid turning the wannabe cop with mixed martial arts training into a bawling blubbering calf. Imagine all of the relatives who could identify his bawling blubbering voice (heard it before?). Imagine, your hero.

First prefacing by noting that I personally don't believe this trifling scuffle/BS was truly worth anyone being killed over, and I consider the accused/acquitted to be a pathetic pussy, but...so...how'd it all work out for YOUR "hero", the stoned kid? Perhaps the possession of even some basic manners, or even half of a brain would've saved him...no?

Having said that: Anyone who can even attempt an argument that people with THC in their systems are made murderous lunatics would be a complete fool.

This affair's naught but a local tragedy that could've been easilly avoided by either of the two individuals involved. The only reason it ever approached the level of some national cause celebre' was entirely due to skin colors and disgustedly twisted and perverted political agendas. Observe the huge numbers of darker hued people that've been murdered by their "own" in the meantime. (I'll just bet that being murdered by someone who looks more like yourself "feels" so much better! Heck! That horrifying, last-experience-on-earth might even then become a Kumbayah moment, one must suppose?) Anyone see that pathetic little tool Holder saying ANYTHING about all those tragic deaths?

 

[eolesen]

Hmm. Did I miss the part where O'Mara or West ever referred to SYG as a defense? All they ever referred to was self defense.

I don't know too many people holding up Zimmerman as a hero. The main interest for those who favored a not guilty verdict seem more interested in the overall principle of the case, which is the right to defend yourself when engaged in a lawful activity. Those instructions would have remained intact even if SYG didn't exist. There was no opportunity to retreat once Martin had Zimmerman on the ground.

I'm sure liberals will argue around the facts of this case for years to come.

 

[Ms Tree]

The job of the prosecutor and defense attorneys is to present their case. Of course they are not going to introduce something that is contrary to their case.

Jury instructions must be agreed upon by both the defense and prosecution and they are not standardized. The judge specifically mentioned Zimmerman name and quoted 776.013. She made no mention of .002, .012 or .032 which you, Knot and others have consistently addressed. Were the instructions 'standard' as you assert, other parts of the SYG law would have been part of the instructions but they were not.

 

[Ms Tree]

Hmm. Did I miss the part where O'Mara or West ever referred to SYG as a defense? All they ever referred to was self defense.

I don't know too many people holding up Zimmerman as a hero. The main interest for those who favored a not guilty verdict seem more interested in the overall principle of the case, which is the right to defend yourself when engaged in a lawful activity. Those instructions would have remained intact even if SYG didn't exist. There was no opportunity to retreat once Martin had Zimmerman on the ground.

I'm sure liberals will argue around the facts of this case for years to come.

Amazing. The judge gives specific instructions to the jury that must be agreed upon by all parties and she specifically quotes section 3 of 776.013 (not any other section or law) and you still hold on to your argument.

 

[muff daddy]

Why did Zimmerman's defense have the April 30,2013 hearing where they said they would not persue immunity under Stand Your Ground and would seek self defense?
That section you keep incessantly quoting is among other sections formatted into a form for juries depending what the charges are. The instructions also are included in accidental killings and attacks on homes or dwellings.

 

[EastUS1]

I'm sure liberals will argue around the facts of this case for years to come.

Hardly. They've largely the attention spans of sea sponges, and there are always more stimuli ("stimulus programs"? 🙂 )to be made ready for feedings by their handlers/masters, to be easilly and predictably manufactured along the way.