Scruit

Seriously thinking about adding a Taser C2 to my EDC... - The C2 can go places my EDC can't (when I have to go into the building to pick my son up from his school every day, for example). "Conceal it well" will not make me feel good about committing a felony - risk is too high. - The fallout from tazing someone is much less than killing them. Even good shoots leave the shooter to suffer. Legals bills, threat of jail time, death threats from "bruh-bruh's" friends, living with the knowledge you took a life or permanently injured someone. - EDC would still be there as a backup, or a go-to tool if the C2 isn't going to help. - Currently I can't carry my EDC every day because I go from CPZ to CPZ all day long. CPZs don't stop the C2. - The C2 works like a police taser only the range is reduced to 15' and the cycle time is 30 seconds, not 5 seconds. Designed to let you flee while the bad guy is doing the floppy dance inthe floor. Thoughts?

+1

http://www.therealgeorgezimmerman.com/

I agree hoodie/hiding face is not proof of wrongdoing. Having said that, I bet you don't walk into a bank with your helmet still on...

The GJ may have been cancelled because the previous prosecutor scheduled it and the new special prosecutor doesn't need it. Or doesn't want it. The prosecutor may have decided that the the basis for charges related to precise points of law that a Judge would be more likely to be swayed by than a GJ. She may feel that the GJ would see a lot of emotional reasons to not return a true bill, and overlook the legal minutae. Or it may just be her style - she may just never use GJs.

Trying to add clarity (and failing). Just saying that the hoodie may not have been the reason he was approached. Maybe it was. I dunno. If your post was not specifically about Zimmerman/Martin then fair enough.

My mistake - I read "and if they pulled a gun and were hassling me" I thought you were talking about Zimmerman.

Recheck that fact - I heard someone got into trouble for vastly over-stating the number of calls made to 911... I don't know what the real number is.

In a gated community an outsider will stand out. He may have been approached simply because he was an outsider, and simply saying; "I'm visiting family" would have been the end of it." Or saying; "Mind you own fucking business" would have been the end of it too. I have no idead what was going on in Zimmerman's head. If he had the gun out when he first approached Martin then he's an idiot and could be guilty of assault/menacing etc. If the gun stayed concealed and he just tried to talk to Martin then again, unwise but perfectly legal. I've been in a similar situation where I say a non-local person after dark in a small community. I just watched them from my house and called the police when I saw them stealing a car. I asked the dispatcher if I should use my car to block the stolen car from leaving its driveway, or go out and try to stop the car being stolen - she said; "Stay out of it." I did. Police go there in time and arrested them - end of story.

All good points. Following Martin was an unwise for an untrained person to do. I would not follow a suspicious person myself. However, it was not illegal, so Zimmerman had every right to politely ask Martin what he was doing. And Martin had every right to tell him to pound sand. Also, he was neighborhood watch - a position recognized by the police. Although I don't know if "patrolling" is an activity the police recommend. I certainly see this as being a crossroads for neighborhood watch type groups, setting new ground rules. Either barring the concept of patrolling, setting rules for it, or even creating a training program to allow such volunteers to patrol more safely... Also, are you suggesting that Zimmerman had his gun out when he approached martin? That is not a claim I've heard supported by any of the evidence released so far. - Did Martin attack Zimmerman, and when? (Martin did NOT have the right to attack Zimmerman, whether during the first conversation or the second), and - WHEN did Zimmerman draw his gun? Zimmerman did NOT have the right to draw his gun at any time other than when he felt his life was in danger. People have this image of Zimmerman approaching Martin with the gun out already - but I've not heard evidence to that effect. I've heard claims that the gun came into play only after Martin commenced his physical attack and subsequently discovered the holstered gun / tried to take it. Even that is just a claim, and the investigators must verify or refute it as part of the deliberations. These are the two key questions that need to be answered by the investigators

He seems to be that personality type. I readily accept that I am too logical a lot of the time, and I find it too easy to disassociate myself from emotion. Even when my mother died and we were discussing legal options for a malpractice suit I was able to look at it from a purely legal/logical perspective that resulted in no suit going ahead. So because of that I find it frustrating when someone argues from a purely emotional perspective and simple does not listen to logic. My opinion on a topic can change from one extreme to another (or anywhere between) based upon a good logical argument. Some folks can't be changed. I betcha he still things that a driver stopped at a red light who gets rear-ended by a speeding biker should stand trial for the biker's death (a position he advocated when he said any death, including traffic accidents, should go to trial) If he really thinks that then all I can do is shake my head and save my breath for someone who can listen to reason. (If he wasn't going to come back before, he will now )

Because the laws are similar enough and we all know the URL to ORC. Moot, really, since Magley has stormed off.

Bye.

For sake of simplicity let's stick with Ohio law. The charge you describe is Murder, charged as a 2nd degree felony. So, you have to prove Zimmerman had the intent to commit a violent act that is a felony in the first or second degree as part of an attempt to purposefully kill Martin. Start at ORC 2903.02, and report back when you have the evidence required to support that conviction.

Basis for "Half your size"??? Martin was much taller and only about 10lb lighter than Zimmerman.

I like how he said "Tiny Asian Cock". Kind of a redundant statement really.

Fair enough.

Basis for this?

You can claim what you want. If it can be proven otherwise then the claim will fail.

OK, you made me do this. Grab your pre-law books. What the hell is Murder 2? Do you get this crap from Law and Order? Or have you actually studied law? There are many different levels of homicide given the actus reus (guilty act) of "I shot him" based upon varying degrees of mens rea (guilty mind). It can be anything from "I plotted for weeks how to kill him and then stalked him and killed him in cold blood" all the way down to "As I was holstering my gun my belt caught the trigger and it fired a shot, ricocheting off the concrete floor and killing the guy next to me". You need to understand the concept of standard defenses. These are necessity, self-defense, automatism, duress, insanity etc. The burden of proof for these standard/affirmative defenses is "by preponderance of the evidence". That is, is it more likely than not. For criminal charges (that are not strict liability) the prosecutor must prove both actus reus and mens rea existed, and at the same time, beyond a reasonable doubt. The affirmative defense, if successful, negates the mens rea, therefore there can be no conviction. The foundation of the affirmative defense of Self Defense is the old Means-Motive-Opportunity-CannotEscalate-MustFlee - except for Floridians don't have the duty to flee. IF, speaking in a general sense, a younger, bigger, stronger (but unarmed) person it on top of a shorter and less physically able person and is striking him in the head, then the jury/judge/investigator must consider the following: - Does the person on top have the means to use deadly force (which is any force likely to cause serious injury or death? - Does the person exhibit the motivation to use deadly force? ("I'm gonna kill you", or continued assault beyond simple incapacitation or "winning the fight", etc) - Does the person have the opportunity to use deadly force? If slamming someone's head on the ground (or, as some have suggested, Martin found and tried to take Zimmerman's holstered gun) is found to be deadly force, then by extension Martin had the opportunity to use deadly force. If the force employed by martin is not found to be deadly force then opportunity and motive are moot. - Did the person on the bottom create or escalate the confrontation? THIS IS KEY IN THE MARTIN CASE... If Martin lost Zimmerman then went back and found him again then that is a new confrontation that Martin started and Zimmerman is in the clear. If the scuffle happened when Zimmerman first approached Martin then he has to overcome the presumption that he "started it" - Did the person on the bottom use any opportunity to flee? IRRELEVANT IN THIS CASE but not because of the oft-cited reason. Stand Your Ground is irrelevant here because the deadly-force confrontation occurred when either party started using deadly force. IF Zimmerman is to be believed, his drew his gun only after he was on the ground. He obviously could not flee once he was on the ground and overpowered. Even without StandYourGround his duty to flee was non-existent at that point. People got hung up on SYG because they thought the deadly confrontation occurred when Zimmerman first made contact with Martin. No so-far-released evidence back that up, and all so-far-release evidence shows that Zimmerman withdrew and Martin came back to find him after the first interaction. SYG is a moot point. (takes deep breath) PEER REVIEW: Could I get someone who's been to law school to verify/validate the concepts I have stated above. They are a mix of my pre-law from England and my research of ORC and federal law in the US. If your knowledge of law comes from the TV then step back and let someone with a law degree correct me if needed.

With that one statement you have shown yourself to be not worth my time.

Cocaine is a helluva drug.

How do you know that?

No, it's because you hold a position that is clearly at odds with hundreds of years of legal precedent.

Damned if he does, damned if he doesn't.