Quote:

---

Originally posted by Geezer:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by m52nickerson:
The 65 year old had not had a finger laid on him and the only evidence was his word. Two men dead and there killer never even faced trial simple on his word.

---

So you have to let the other guys try to kill you first?

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Niki2:
I can't know the precise situation, obviously. I only know that Zimmerman's wounds weren't life threatening, he had a gun, and logic dictates Martin shouldn't have lost his life for walking home bothering nobody. It is my own opinion that knowing the law and having the mentality that numerous things have shown I believe he had, Zimmerman felt okay with shooting Martin. That should not be.

"The question is what is worse, letting a guilty man go free, or jailing an innocent man?" I don't think that's the question. The only thing I can reply to that question is "a man in jail is still alive". But the real question for me is whether we should allow laws to be passed which reflect the agenda of special interests which result in the death of innocent people.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Geezer:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by m52nickerson:
The 65 year old had not had a finger laid on him and the only evidence was his word. Two men dead and there killer never even faced trial simple on his word.

---

So you have to let the other guys try to kill you first?

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by BYTEMITE:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Geezer:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by m52nickerson:
The 65 year old had not had a finger laid on him and the only evidence was his word. Two men dead and there killer never even faced trial simple on his word.

---

So you have to let the other guys try to kill you first?

---

Yes. That's actually how self-defense is defined. There has to be an escalation of force before hand, and you can only respond with lethal force if you are threatened by lethal force. In some states it you can also respond with lethal force if you are trying to stop a felony, but it varies.

You can argue about whether or not it's a very good system (I think Frem would have some amusing comments to make on that count), but that's the way the law works.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by BYTEMITE:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Geezer:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by m52nickerson:
The 65 year old had not had a finger laid on him and the only evidence was his word. Two men dead and there killer never even faced trial simple on his word.

---

So you have to let the other guys try to kill you first?

---

Yes. That's actually how self-defense is defined. There has to be an escalation of force before hand, and you can only respond with lethal force if you are threatened by lethal force. In some states it you can also respond with lethal force if you are trying to stop a felony, but it varies.

You can argue about whether or not it's a very good system (I think Frem would have some amusing comments to make on that count), but that's the way the law works.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Geezer:
[Well, no, actually.

It takes a threat, overt or implied. Two large, drunk/drugged up, men (one was an ex-professional wrestler), would, I'd suspect, seem pretty threatening to a disabled 65 year-old guy who was on his own property, even if they weren't verbally threatening him (and do you really think they weren't?). At the very least they were threatening to physically remove him (wanna let two drunks with a grudge get their hands on you?) and take his boat.

And once again, like the Zimmerman case, there's plenty of facts neither of us know.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Geezer:

Well, no, actually.

It takes a threat, overt or implied. Two large, drunk/drugged up, men (one was an ex-professional wrestler), would, I'd suspect, seem pretty threatening to a disabled 65 year-old guy who was on his own property, even if they weren't verbally threatening him (and do you really think they weren't?). At the very least they were threatening to physically remove him (wanna let two drunks with a grudge get their hands on you?) and take his boat.

And once again, like the Zimmerman case, there's plenty of facts neither of us know.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Niki2:
You might want to edit that sentence, NewOld, the grammar is pretty convoluted. ;o) But the statement is pretty horrific.

In other words, if I invite someone over, and maybe get them drunk to help my story, I could kill them and say I did it in self-defense, if there are no witnesses or evidence to the contrary.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by BYTEMITE:
I don't know the case you're referring to. But if we're still talking about Florida, or... Anywhere, really, then as far as I know it still has to be a threat of lethal force.

---

Quote:

---

If the two men you refer to had brandished a knife or a gun at the 65 year old, then yes, that would be a lethal threat, and would justify lethal force under the law. Or maybe according to the Zimmerman results, if an improvised weapon or ongoing assault were sufficient to make the victim of the attack fear for their life.

---

Quote:

---

A "threat" as you call it is too vague a term to understand exactly what is being described. Did they threaten the man verbally? A "death threat", which is still not the same in the legal sense as a "threat of lethal force?"

---

Quote:

---

Only a threat of lethal force (in other words brandishing a lethal weapon) justifies the use of lethal force.

---

Quote:

---

This is the case in every self defense law I've ever seen. It was true in the Zimmerman trial as far as I can tell, it is true in other self-defense claims I've seen from Florida (the defendant generally claims that the victim pulled a gun), and theoretically should apply to this case that you're talking about.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by m52nickerson:
No, she is saying that laws in Florida should be changed that if you shoot and kill someone and claim self-defense you should have to prove that.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by 1kiki:
What I would like is a re-trial.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by BYTEMITE:
I don't know the case you're referring to. But if we're still talking about Florida, or... Anywhere, really, then as far as I know it still has to be a threat of lethal force.

In the Zimmerman trial, the defense argued that the cement that Martin was purportedly smashing Zimmerman's head into was a lethal weapon and as such the situation had escalated such as to justify use of lethal force.

Which is not exactly what the law is intended to mean, but the judge and jury went with it so I guess it has precedence now.

If the two men you refer to had brandished a knife or a gun at the 65 year old, then yes, that would be a lethal threat, and would justify lethal force under the law. Or maybe according to the Zimmerman results, if an improvised weapon or ongoing assault were sufficient to make the victim of the attack fear for their life.

A "threat" as you call it is too vague a term to understand exactly what is being described. Did they threaten the man verbally? A "death threat", which is still not the same in the legal sense as a "threat of lethal force?"

Only a threat of lethal force (in other words brandishing a lethal weapon) justifies the use of lethal force. This is the case in every self defense law I've ever seen. It was true in the Zimmerman trial as far as I can tell, it is true in other self-defense claims I've seen from Florida (the defendant generally claims that the victim pulled a gun), and theoretically should apply to this case that you're talking about.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Geezer:
We have nickerson...

Quote:

---

Originally posted by m52nickerson:
No, she is saying that laws in Florida should be changed that if you shoot and kill someone and claim self-defense you should have to prove that.

---

...saying that the defendant should have to prove he's innocent instead of the State proving he's guilty.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by m52nickerson:
Bytemite you are incorrect regarding the Florida law. While the defense did argue that Martin was using deadly force they did not need to. In Florida you only need to have a reasonable fear of great bodily injury or death to use lethal force.

Many of the cases in Florida that seen people granted immunity based on the law have had unarmed victims.

Here is the statute...

http://www.leg.state.fl.us/statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute
&URL=0700-0799/0776/0776.html

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Niki2:
Nick, I hear your frustration. Don't let him get to you; by now you must know he, like others, will go around and around with circular "logic", mis-stating, misrepresenting and falsely claiming what others have said, mean, think, and everything else. There can be no communication; trying will just give you a headache.

And that is the point I've been making all along:

Quote:

---

I think you you shoot someone and claim self-defense I think you should have to prove that claim, or at least provide some type of evidence to support your claim. If not it becomes way to simple to murder someone.

---

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Geezer:
So you are also fine with taking away the presumption of innocence that is pretty much the cornerstone of our judicial system, and requiring the accused to prove he's not guilty?

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Geezer:
How do you feel about Kiki's idea of retrying someone until the State gets the verdict it wants?

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Niki2:
See? He's fully aware that's not what either of us are saying. Why bother?

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by BYTEMITE:
To Geezer: You promised to try to stay civil if you weren't provoked. I know what Niki said could be taken as a provocation, but could you try to ignore that and remain civil anyway?

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Geezer:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by BYTEMITE:
I don't know the case you're referring to. But if we're still talking about Florida, or... Anywhere, really, then as far as I know it still has to be a threat of lethal force.

---

So as long as the assailant promises to only break your legs, you can't defend yourself? I don't think so.

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

A "threat" as you call it is too vague a term to understand exactly what is being described. Did they threaten the man verbally? A "death threat", which is still not the same in the legal sense as a "threat of lethal force?"

---

So you have to know positively that the assailant is for sure going to try to kill (not just injure) you before you can defend yourself? Or if he's beating you with his fists, you may only use fists to defend yourself? What if he's much bigger or stronger than you? I suppose that a woman couldn't use lethal force to defend from rape, since her life wouldn't be in danger.

---

Quote:

---

So how far are you guys really willing to go in your quest to get vengence upon George Zimmerman? How many of the legal protections we all have, and that have been put in place for good reason, do you want to overturn?

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Oonjerah:

O.J. wasn't guilty under criminal law. That means,
it was not proven to the jury that he killed them.

Nevertheless, he had to face a wrongful death suit?
How can that be right?

---

Quote:

---

nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Geezer:
I am really trying. However, it seems to me that Niki, Kiki, and Nikerson are so interested in finding George Zimmerman guilty of something that they're willing to write off "innocent until proven guilty", "double jeopardy", "jury trial", and other of the very underpinnings of our judicial system.

It really does disturb me that folks would voluntarily give up the protections that generations have worked so hard to build into our judicial system, just so thay could punish one man - that a jury said was not guilty.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by BYTEMITE:
The principle of self defense laws as I know it is that you CAN defend yourself if someone else tries to break your legs... But you can't use LETHAL FORCE until they threaten lethal force. You see my meaning?

---

Quote:

---

If you have like a bar brawl and you knock someone unconscious with your fists and they recover, but everyone there says that the other guy started it, your assault would be defensible by a self-defense argument. You might even be able to get out of paying any medical or insurance bills.

But if you accidentally killed the guy, you could be potentially up for manslaughter because nothing warranted lethal force in the situation.

---

Quote:

---

A rape is a felony, as is murder or attempted murder. Self-defense is applicable if it is used to prevent a felony in many versions of the law - it also protects a person if they were an interloper preventing said rape or murder.

---

Quote:

---

Although I think there might also be some argument about whether the woman's life is in danger there, because women commonly die from injuries sustained from violent rape.

---

Quote:

---

I have no idea WHERE you got that I'm somehow calling for Zimmerman's blood.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Niki2:
"Not Guilty under FLORIDA law"--I repeated that so many times it was obvious, and said clearly that my problem is with the LAW, not that I wanted to do any of what Geezer tosses out. Bad laws need to be reviewed and changed when they're shown to be bad laws. I'm pretty sure Geezer fully understood my point, but it would require discussing the nuances of that law; it's easier to misrepresent, which in my opinion is what he's been doing.

---

Quote:

---

If the guy was, say, beating your head against the bar rail, how do you know that he's not trying to kill you? It's quite possible that he could. Do you ask him his intentions?

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by BYTEMITE:
It's really not that hard to tell when someone's trying to kill you versus they're just drunk and trying to hit you.

---

Quote:

---

The Zimmerman case really had two problems. The cement and the repeatedly hitting against the cement could be the same as the bar pole scenario above, but Zimmerman's attorney called that a "lethal weapon" in the lethal threat sense which has a very clear definition under the law. I wouldn't call either one constituting a lethal weapon in the way you would call a gun or a knife a lethal weapon. Both the pole and the cement can be used to deadly effect, but an improvised weapon is a different thing than a lethal weapon which was manufactured for a particular purpose. I mean you can kill with a PEN or a PENCIL too. The idea of someone saying "they threatened me with a pencil so I shot them" is a little laughable, see. And logically that's why the definition of lethal weapons shouldn't be stretched to include improvised weapons just because intent to kill may have been there.

---

Quote:

---

The other problem with the Zimmerman case is that it is pretty much impossible to establish who really started anything and more importantly who was on top when they were purportedly struggling on the ground.

---

Quote:

---

But the state's charge for murder really didn't have enough evidence either, just as Zimmerman's self defense claim didn't really have enough evidence, and reasonable doubt leading to no conviction was the only possible outcome for the trial.

---

Quote:

---

There's also uses of this interpretation of the law you'd actually like though. For example, if someone used a non-lethal self-defense technique like mace, and used the mace within the manufacturing specifications, and their attacker had an unexpected reaction to the mace and died or something, I don't think they could be convicted.

---

Quote:

---

The downside of this is that police use that same defense and avoid conviction, but they often tamper with their tasers to deliver far higher voltage than was intended by the manufacturer, or deliver more shocks in a minute than is recommended by their guidelines. So when people have heart attacks...

---

Quote:

---

Well, I'm just saying there's a lot of nuances to the self-defense laws in a lot of places.

---

Quote:

---

good-natured drunk is going to either turn mean or not control their actions to the point that fatality is a probable outcome.

---

Quote:

---

As noted above, mere hands, fists, and feet were lethal weapons in a murder around 800 times in 2011. The fact that a weapon is improvised doesn't make it any less deadly, given the proper circumstances.

---

Quote:

---

Well, that's the problem with any homicide case where there is only one surviving witness. It's up to the State to prove murder

...

But the system is that the State has to prove the crime beyond a reasonable doubt. Zimmerman's lawyers don't have to prove it was self-defense, they only have to cast reasonable doubt on the State's case that it wasn't.

---

Quote:

---

If it was self-defense, I'm not sure why they'd be convicted anyway.

---