gut;1455423 wrote:Precisely. It's an affirmative self-defense THEORY, as difficult to prove as disprove, which is why it's effective.

For the prosecution to put that forth would probably help Zimmerman as they would be conceding that Martin threw the first punch and was assaulting Zimmerman.

Except shooting someone during mutual combat is not stand your ground self defense its manslaughter

ccrunner609;1455418 wrote:I think that with the evidence that will be shown, Zimmerman walks. With the media and political pressure.......he gets something.

He SHOULD get something. Not 2nd degree murder, but a kid is dead because of a series of poor decisions that Zimmerman is responsible for. I bet he never gets out of the car if he didn't have a gun.

LJ;1455426 wrote:Except shooting someone during mutual combat is not stand your ground self defense its manslaughter

Is Zimmerman going to claim stand your ground? Does Zimmerman have to prove it wasn't mutual combat?

SMH I think I'm done here.

LJ;1455426 wrote:Except shooting someone during mutual combat is not stand your ground self defense its manslaughter

Yes it is self defense. Why are you refusing to reply to my question? Oh, because you are totally wrong.

gut;1455431 wrote:Is Zimmerman going to claim stand your ground? Does Zimmerman have to prove it wasn't mutual combat?

SMH I think I'm done here.

He has to prove that he was attacked unprovoked and was saving his own life. Doing so would disprove that it was mutual combat because if it was mutual combat the fight would not be unprovoked.

LJ;1455436 wrote:He has to prove that he was attacked unprovoked and was saving his own life. Doing so would disprove that it was mutual combat because if it was mutual combat the fight would not be unprovoked.

Good lord man, NO! Zimmerman doesn't have to prove anything. WTF I thought you were a lawyer?

And you are ignoring a key aspect of mutual combatant, the concept of mutual consent. You are never going to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Zimmerman through actions and words was consenting, knowingly or unknowingly, to a fight.

'mutual combat' is such a small factor here, I can't believe you are so stuck on those two words. On top of that, what you say about it is wrong. C'mon, man! Florida Supreme Court said so.

gut;1455439 wrote:Good lord man, NO! Zimmerman doesn't have to prove anything. WTF I thought you were a lawyer?

And you are ignoring a key aspect of mutual combatant, the concept of mutual consent. You are never going to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Zimmerman through actions and words was consenting, knowingly or unknowingly, to a fight.

I'm not a lawyer, cut the shit. "Proving" that it wasn't mutual combat is how he would create doubt in that he was trying to kill martin (this is 2nd degree murder remember). I'm not saying that he has to prove his innocence, I'm saying that showing he was attacked is his defense.

ActionJackson;1455441 wrote:'mutual combat' is such a small factor here, I can't believe you are so stuck on those two words. On top of that, what you say about it is wrong. C'mon, man! Florida Supreme Court said so.

Yeah, he's completely bastardized the concept. The intent is, basically, two guys in a bar saying "let's take this outside" and then throwing down. It's not mutual combat because clearly Zimmerman is not consenting to a fight.

On top of that, he's attempting to attach some qualification or criteria to the stand your ground law that doesn't exist.

gut;1455448 wrote:Yeah, he's completely bastardized the concept. The intent is, basically, two guys in a bar saying "let's take this outside" and then throwing down. It's not mutual combat because clearly Zimmerman is not consenting to a fight.

On top of that, he's attempting to attach some qualification or criteria to the stand your ground law that doesn't exist.

Lol it does exist. Not sure where you get that from. It very clearly exists.

LJ;1455447 wrote:I'm not a lawyer, cut the ****. "Proving" that it wasn't mutual combat is how he would create doubt in that he was trying to kill martin (this is 2nd degree murder remember). I'm not saying that he has to prove his innocence, I'm saying that showing he was attacked is his defense.

No, claiming he was attacked is his defense. It's up to the prosecution to prove otherwise.

You're trying to attach conditions and qualifications to the stand your ground law that don't exist. And I think we can submit as fact that he was assaulted.

gut;1455453 wrote:No, claiming he was attacked is his defense. It's up to the prosecution to prove otherwise.

You're trying to attach conditions and qualifications to the stand your ground law that don't exist. And I think we can submit as fact that he was assaulted.

The qualification does exist. Read the Florida law, not just a wiki blurb on what stand your ground means.

The person who uses defensive force is engaged in an unlawful activity


Aka fighting the other person

LJ;1455451 wrote:Lol it does exist. Not sure where you get that from. It very clearly exists.

One more time. Zimmerman doesn't have to prove he didn't consent to a fight. The mutual combatant thing is a non-starter - he clearly isn't mutually engaging in a fight and the 911 call will support that.

You're attaching entirely too much importance to a rather obscure defense, which isn't even valid in some states. Just use some common sense - if it was that cut-and-dry hardly anyone would be convicted of assault because they would all claim they were provoked and felt compelled to strike first out of fear/self-defense.

It's not going to invalidate his defense. The idea behind that is you and I argue in the bar and go outside to fight...I can't shoot you and then claim stand your ground.

LJ;1455456 wrote:The qualification does exist. Read the Florida law, not just a wiki blurb on what stand your ground means.

Show me the statute. Point me to the specific clause.

And regardless I will guarantee you that Zimmerman doesn't have to prove it wasn't mutual combat. Why do you continue to pretend like Zimmerman has to check off some boxes to assert a defense?

LJ, still nothing to show when Zimmerman was arrested for chasing others? Still looking for a statute that gut asked for? Still ignoring the links I gave you showing you can engage in mutual combat (i.e. stabbing to death / shooting a guy who punched you) and win 'stand your ground' hearings? You give up? Admit being totally wrong?

gut;1455472 wrote:Show me the statute. Point me to the specific clause.

And regardless I will guarantee you that Zimmerman doesn't have to prove it wasn't mutual combat. Why do you continue to pretend like Zimmerman has to check off some boxes to assert a defense?

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 ifa) 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 ifa) 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
(c) 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.

(3) 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.
(4) A person who unlawfully and by force enters or attempts to enter a person’s dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle is presumed to be doing so with the intent to commit an unlawful act involving force or violence.
(5) As used in this section, the terma) “Dwelling” means a building or conveyance of any kind, including any attached porch, whether the building or conveyance is temporary or permanent, mobile or immobile, which has a roof over it, including a tent, and is designed to be occupied by people lodging therein at night.
(b) “Residence” means a dwelling in which a person resides either temporarily or permanently or is visiting as an invited guest.
(c) “Vehicle” means a conveyance of any kind, whether or not motorized, which is designed to transport people or property.

History.—s. 1, ch. 2005-27.

Still figuring out this tablet so formatting may be off

Not a chance, if he is acquitted the riots will be outrageous and the people in charge know this.

[h=4]Mutual Combat[/h] While not sanctioned as a legal defense, mutual combat is a theory that can be argued to a jury as a sub-category of the defense of consent. Essentially, the theory goes, if two people mutually engage in a fight (usually a bar brawl) neither person should be able to complain of the ensuing contact.

http://www.richardhornsby.com/crimes/battery/

LJ;1455544 wrote:Still figuring out this tablet so formatting may be off[/FONT][/COLOR]

Can you show me where it discusses "mutual combatants"? Didn't think so because, yes, I had actually read the statute as opposed to merely accusing someone of reading wiki blurbs.

What you are highlighting is something entirely different than you have been arguing. Further, if you continue reading you would see there are actually exceptions where Stand Your Ground applies even if Zimmerman WERE the aggressor.

gut;1455669 wrote:Can you show me where it discusses "mutual combatants"? Didn't think so because, yes, I had actually read the statute as opposed to merely accusing someone of reading wiki blurbs.

What you are highlighting is something entirely different than you have been arguing. Further, if you continue reading you would see there are actually exceptions where Stand Your Ground applies even if Zimmerman WERE the aggressor.

Only if he were not engaged in an unlawful activity. We had this whole discussion before in the other thread over a year ago. The whole exact same discussion. Would it not be unlawful to harass stalk and provoke someone into a confrontation?

And im not highlighting anything different than what i am saying. The way the law is written is not meant to allow someone to provoke another into a fight then shoot them over it, which is what Zimmerman did.

All that said ive always thought that 2nd degree murder wasnt the right charge. Ive always said it should be manslaughter. He got out of that car looking to provoke martin I to a confrontation. He probably thought be was gonna catch some petty thief, make a citizens arrest, then be able to jerk off at night thinking about it.

LJ;1455711 wrote: Would it not be unlawful to harass stalk and provoke someone into a confrontation?

For like the 5th time, you are assuming facts that are very much in contention. Zimmerman has no burden to prove he did not provoke, stalk or whatever. You keep acting as if Zimmerman has to jump through these hoops, prove he wasn't the aggressor. That demonstrates a fundamental lack of understanding for the criminal system.

And you should actually do what you encouraged me to do - read the statute in its entirety. Stand Your Ground allows for lethal defense EVEN IF you were the initial aggressor in the extreme case that your life is threatened (and remember Zimmerman's claim to be losing consciousness?) OR if you back off and say basically "my bad" and the other person continues to attack you.

There is no proof Zimmerman committed an unlawful act (he, in fact, has a right to be where he is on a public street), nor does Zimmerman have to prove he didn't commit an unlawful act.

Alleging Zimmerman was the aggressor because he was stalking or following is dubious at best. We wouldn't have need for restraining orders if that weren't the case.

LJ;1455711 wrote: And im not highlighting anything different than what i am saying. The way the law is written is not meant to allow someone to provoke another into a fight then shoot them over it, which is what Zimmerman did.

All that said ive always thought that 2nd degree murder wasnt the right charge. Ive always said it should be manslaughter. He got out of that car looking to provoke martin I to a confrontation. He probably thought be was gonna catch some petty thief, make a citizens arrest, then be able to jerk off at night thinking about it.

You aren't looking at this remotely objectively. You are making assumptions about Zimmerman's actions and state of mind, and that is why you are flailing so helplessly thinking Zimmerman has some sort of burden of proof or hurdle to clear.

One final time for you: Zimmerman will not have to prove he didn't start the fight, he only needs reasonable doubt that he didn't. And unless the DA has some bombshell that hasn't leaked it's pretty open and shut, presumption of innocence and all.

Devils Advocate;1455203 wrote:Gee golly gosh. imagine a teen walking between houses in his own complex. Zimmerman referred to him as a fucking coon. That's not racial?

It is also pretty hard to say it is self defense when you are the initial armed aggressor.

from what i read the other day it wasnt his OWN complex, it was a friend of his father who lived there.

ccrunner609;1455837 wrote:Martin family attorney sounds like a uneducated hick. He talks like he is missing brain cells. He was just on TV calling Zimmerman "white". Nothing like keeping it racial.

So he pretty much sounds like you?