The Goat Pen

This means that the force must be reasonable in relation to the threatened force. For instance, if someone attacks you with non-deadly force, such as their fists, you may not defend yourself with deadly force.

Fists can be deadly force, back of the head to concrete definitely would be, IMO. Do you have to analyze your adversary's intent? There's not really a hard line where you cross from fist fight to deadly force, IMO.

eCat wrote:the irony is that in both cases, the victims, if they were still alive could also use the "stand your ground law" as their defense.

that's been my point all along. except only one of them was armed. 2nd degree sounds ambitious although if the 911 tapes are to be believed, Zimmerman seems like he was out to shoot the kid. still, manslaughter might be more realistic. in any event, Zimmerman acted criminally and should have been arrested from the get-go and there wouldn't have been any hubbub.

Which 911 tapes? The full version, or the media version?

the ones in which the dispatcher told him to back off

if they were still alive could also use the "stand your ground law" as their defense.

You can't use stand your ground if you initiate the fight (and that doesn't necessarily mean throw the first punch). It's highly unlikely that both could therefore utilize that law.

is the fight initiated by the one who threw the first punch or the one who did the stalking? as long as Zimmerman's attorneys are unable to show that Trayvon Martin planned to do anything but walk home, they'll have a hard time showing Zimmerman acted in self-defense.

Now, if Zimmerman was a cop, he'd have a right to stop a citizen walking home but Zimmerman apparently was just an overzealous neighborhood watch guy who initiated the interaction.

Zimmerman has a problem in that he is the head of his neighborhood watch, but he has to claim that he was not on watch duty. Apparently there are specific rules about not having a gun when on watch duty. But then he has no rights to confront when he's not on watch duty.

From what I read, the kid liked the weed. Maybe he was stoned and thought the boogie man was following him. Didn't Zimmerman tell the dispatcher that he lost Martin and was heading back to his car when Martin came up behind him and confronted him?

Didn't Zimmerman tell the dispatcher that he lost Martin and was heading back to his car when Martin came up behind him and confronted him?

He said he stopped following him. If Martin was high, it'll come out at the trial. One question is whether Zimmerman was in his car when he was following Martin or was he on foot. If he was in his car, then he had to get out. If he wasn't, then the location of his car and home are a major question.

From my understanding...

1. The tox report came back negative for drugs and alcohol (at least in the short-term) for Martin. Zimm was not tested at all...which is common in most police departments when someone discharges a weapon at the scene of a (potential) crime
2. Zimm was in his car, saw the boy, called 911, talked about why he was calling, said the boy was getting away, then you could hear the chime a car alert makes when a door opens and the dispatch asked him "are you following him" (or something of that nature)
3. Zimm said "yes" (you can now hear wind in the phone, like he's out of his car and on foot) and the dispatch said "don't do that"
4. Zimm said "okay"

After that I haven't heard any more tape. I don't know if that "okay" meant he turned to go back to his car or it was just him acknowledging the instructions of dispatch, but not following them.

From all I've seen, Zimm did not tell dispatch he was going to his car. One of his "Team Zimm" people (his brother or that bearded guy named George somethingorother) said that Zimm was going back to his car when Martin snuck up behind him. I don't know if that was right or not...and we may never know because by the time the person said it, Zimm had been home for 3 or 4 weeks, the boy's body was cold, any wounds would have healed on Zimm, any evidence on his clothing would have been washed away and the recollections of the ancillary individuals get less credible the further you get from the incident.

This will not be an easy trial, that's for sure, but it did not have to be this difficult to get to the truth.

Oh, the other thing about that town in Florida is that it had problems in the recent past with the police force and its actions with the broader community. That's another reason why it was felt prudent to hire a special prosecutor.

whether the kid was high on weed is completely immaterial.

Also, was the 911 tape that had the kid screaming "help me" one that had been doctored?

But what if the weed was laced?

Hey North Korea.

FAIL

bet we shot it down

Wonders if the "local watch" would confront a guy in bermuda shorts, brown loafers and black calf length socks walking alone in Harlem...

Jungle Rat wrote:But what if the weed was laced?

then that would show up separately on a tox report.

other than sprinkling some crack on a bong hit, there has never been any reason for me to lace weed. and when I did that, it was really lacing the crack since that was the predominant and preferred high.

I'm not a big fan of Dershowitz but this is what he says

"“Most affidavits of probable cause are very thin. This is so thin that it won’t make it past a judge on a second degree murder charge,” Dershowitz said. “There’s simply nothing in there that would justify second degree murder.”

He goes on to say that not only is it thin but also irresponsible as they did not include any of the information about Zimmerman having blood and grass stains. He says the affadavit doesn't even make it to probable cause, everything in it leads to self defense and her speech was a re-election ploy. Even if he (Zim) was the instigator, you still have traditional right of self defense and there is nothing that suggests the crime.

He also believes the prosecutor doesn't really care whether it goes to trial because she has what she wants from this in winning the popularity contest, which is pretty much my biggest complaint from what I saw in the past week.

Sadly it appears that his lawyer is setting the stage for a plea bargain

http://realclearpolitics.com/video/2012 ... hical.html

Well, that's in line with what Owlman said. Murder 2 was probably a scare tactic for a Man 1 plea...

Would you take a plea instead of a trial on Murder 2? With what you've read so far? This might not even make it to arraignment. I wouldn't. Not yet.

If it goes to a jury...considering all the emotion and publicity around the case, to date...anything can happen. It's not guaranteed a plea would be taken, but I still think the likelihood of a conviction is high.

Still a long way off. I'd play it out (especially if I can get out on bail at some point) until the game was about to start an saw all the cards.