George Zimmerman Trial

[waynefrcan]

I really don't have the time for that case, but it's all in the details. I am rarely wrong when it comes to who is guilty or not and what the verdict will be or should be.

 

[crsublette]

Ok let me run this scenario by you.

Let’s say he said freeze punks, do you feel lucky lol. Then 2 of them ran and the 3rd charged him with no weapon. HE obviously could have handled the punk, a few pistol whips to the head and he's down.

What does your laws say about that scenario if it happened that way and still he was shot twice and killed?

If intent was to show harm, as was indicated due to the crime in process and this criminal act absolutely does prove malicious intent to do harm, and the criminal charges the citizen that is conducting a citizen's arrest and the citizen is unaware of any other weapons on the suspect, then, yes, it is self defense. It would have been a different case if the malicious intent by the suspect could not be easily proved. In this case, it was absolutely provable to show the criminal's intentions for charging the citizen and none of it was vague at all.

It is absolutely no different than a suspect charging a police officer that has his gun drawn on you, telling you to stay back, you rather decide to charge the police officer irregardless of showing any weapon, the police officer shoots you dead. Although, due to the police inherit authority, they are given a benefit of the doubt not allowed to a citizen.

The criminal kid should have ran with his other buddies rather than instantly charging the dude with the drawn gun conducting the citizen's arrest, which from what I briefly read is not allowed in Canada to the extent we are allowed here in America.

In self defense cases, the burden of proof is on the prosecution.

Not for sure what the evidence was in that case, but I bet there was some witness testimonials or video that helped out the citizen.


Now, unfortunately, depending on the prosecutions effectiveness at swaying the jury, emotions, compassion, and sympathy often determines many of these cases. So, I could have seen how the court case would not have been not guilty.


The is why the injuries on Zim and lack of injury on Trayvon, the cell phone audio, and the rest of it is quite vital to the Zim court case. I doubt Zim would have received a not guilty verdict if there was zero significant injuries whatsoever on Zim, if the injuries were only on Trayvon, no screaming heard by the police, and no narrative with the police prior to the incident. If all of this did not happen, then I doubt he would have received a not guilty verdict.

 

[CdnJCR]

If intent was to show harm, as was indicated due to the crime in process and this criminal act absolutely does prove malicious intent to do harm, and the criminal charges the citizen that is conducting a citizen's arrest and the citizen is unaware of any other weapons on the suspect, then, yes, it is self defense. It would have been a different case if the malicious intent by the suspect could not be easily proved. In this case, it was absolutely provable to show the criminal's intentions for charging the citizen and none of it was vague at all.

It is absolutely no different than a suspect charging a police officer that has his gun drawn on you, telling you to stay back, you rather decide to charge the police officer irregardless of showing any weapon, the police officer shoots you dead. Although, due to the police inherit authority, they are given a benefit of the doubt not allowed to a citizen.

The criminal kid should have ran with his other buddies rather than instantly charging the dude with the drawn gun conducting the citizen's arrest, which from what I briefly read is not allowed in Canada to the extent we are allowed here in America.

In self defense cases, the burden of proof is on the prosecution.


Now, unfortunately, depending on the prosecutions effectiveness at swaying the jury, emotions, compassion, and sympathy often determines many of these cases. So, I could have seen how the court case would not have been not guilty.

Canada
Bill C-26, the Citizen's Arrest and Self-defence Act received Royal Assent on June 28, 2012 (2012 S.C. c. 9) and the measures contained therein come into force on March 11, 2013. The legislation replaces the existing Criminal Code provisions on self-defence and defence of property with new defences.

The basic elements of both defences are the same and can be easily stated. Whether a person is defending themselves or another person, or defending property in their possession, the general rule will be that they can undertake any acts for the purposes of protecting or defending property or a person as long as they reasonably perceive a threat, and their acts, including their use of force, are reasonable in the circumstances.

 

[crsublette]

Good move, better late than never.

 

[waynefrcan]

Interesting. I guess we will have to trust that all the cops and prosecutors & juror's got all the evidence right. Anyone of those groups get it wrong and a guilty guy walks. One of the punks that ran heard the victim say "please don't kill me I'm young". Meaning I think, I'm young and stupid for doing this crime against your property.

The ZIm case was good cops and a jury with stupid ignorant prosecutors.

 

[waynefrcan]

You back on the ball today friend! We will just disregard some of that weird science you were mentioning yesturday lol

Canada
Bill C-26, the Citizen's Arrest and Self-defence Act received Royal Assent on June 28, 2012 (2012 S.C. c. 9) and the measures contained therein come into force on March 11, 2013. The legislation replaces the existing Criminal Code provisions on self-defence and defence of property with new defences.

The basic elements of both defences are the same and can be easily stated. Whether a person is defending themselves or another person, or defending property in their possession, the general rule will be that they can undertake any acts for the purposes of protecting or defending property or a person as long as they reasonably perceive a threat, and their acts, including their use of force, are reasonable in the circumstances.

 

[waynefrcan]

Now, unfortunately, depending on the prosecutions effectiveness at swaying the jury, emotions, compassion, and sympathy often determines many of these cases. So, I could have seen how the court case would not have been not guilty.

Often juror's get the law wrong. Should we really be putting someones life in the hands of people that never studied the law?

 

[crsublette]

Often juror's get the law wrong. Should we really be putting someones life in the hands of people that never studied the law?

Yep.


That's the gamble from simply living. You just hope you got a good lawyer representing you, hope the evidence is there in your favor, and will never be that innocent man put in prison, and hope there will be truth in sentencing.

Of course though, everyone who loses a case believes they were wronged by the system and most of all the prisoners believe they are innocent.

 

[waynefrcan]

Casey Anthony was a good example. There was no reasonable doubt, but the Juror's had some doubt and thought that was good enough for a not guily, yuk!

 

[capewind]

From the little I read about it, the Jury came to the wrong conclusion. Something wrong with that story. A skinny white kid charges a 300 pound large black male pointing a handgun?

The reason it never made the big headlines is because the white punks were involved in a crime at the time of the confrontation. No skittles & ice tea.

Maybe the results of the toxicology report explains his lack in brains .... Trayvons skittles and ice tea were not "innocent" ... just one of many "cocktails" ... ask any teenager! even if they are not "into them" they can likely tell you the most popular convience store "highs" ....

 

[CdnJCR]

Good move, better late than never.

We have always had self defence laws etc. This was just clarification of these laws. Here is a part that could have been used in the Zimmerman trial.

The unlawful attack element is also removed because it causes a great deal of difficulty under the current law. This element complicates trials unnecessarily by placing the focus on the early stages of a confrontation. In asking the jury to determine who attacked whom first, the jury must look to which actions constituted the first assault. This in turn requires the jury to determine what the accused believed about the intentions of the other party. It's far preferable to focus attention on the thoughts and actions of the defender at the time when they committed the actions they are charged with.

 

[capewind]

We have always had self defence laws etc. This was just clarification of these laws. Here is a part that could have been used in the Zimmerman trial.

The unlawful attack element is also removed because it causes a great deal of difficulty under the current law. This element complicates trials unnecessarily by placing the focus on the early stages of a confrontation. In asking the jury to determine who attacked whom first, the jury must look to which actions constituted the first assault. This in turn requires the jury to determine what the accused believed about the intentions of the other party. It's far preferable to focus attention on the thoughts and actions of the defender at the time when they committed the actions they are charged with.

I have re-read this, and am confused. There was a great deal of time spent on the early stages of the GZ/TM case, or at least in my interputations of the fact. GZ was watching a suspicious person .. following and watching are not illegal actions in a public area ... Watching is not an attack or assault.

 

[CdnJCR]

I have re-read this, and am confused. There was a great deal of time spent on the early stages of the GZ/TM case, or at least in my interputations of the fact. GZ was watching a suspicious person .. following and watching are not illegal actions in a public area ... Watching is not an attack or assault.

Not a lawyer but under Canadian law the jury would put less importance on who followed who, who started the fight etc. and focus attention on the thoughts and actions of the defender (Zimmerman) at the time when he committed the actions he was charged with. In other words regardless of what happen before, if he feared for his life = self defence. I would add he would have had to have no other way of getting away from the confrontation safely as I do not believe we have any stand your ground rights.

 

[capewind]

I am overtired and clearly not at the top of my game, but lost on where you are going with this ... this case did address the moment physical contact was made, and it was in those moments where it was justifiable self defense,...

The focus on who followed whom seemed more of a media issue in trying to show racial profiling, and not just a guy watching out for his neighborhood...

As to the stand your ground laws, we have I believe 30 states with some variation of this law. My state not being one of them ... everything varies by situation, but if I was threatend with bodily harm, and had the option physically available to me, I would use deadly force FIRST. This may not apply to most, but I am at my best when under pressure, and am able to quickly access my options. For me, adrenaline makes me more focused, and less likely to be irrational.

 

[waynefrcan]

What are you talking about?? You live in Canada correct? WE would not have any concealed firearms so the Zim case would never happen. Only in the event of a bad guy having an illegal gun. But either way the sucker is going to jail.

Not a lawyer but under Canadian law the jury would put less importance on who followed who, who started the fight etc. and focus attention on the thoughts and actions of the defender (Zimmerman) at the time when he committed the actions he was charged with. In other words regardless of what happen before, if he feared for his life = self defence. I would add he would have had to have no other way of getting away from the confrontation safely as I do not believe we have any stand your ground rights.