BARACK OBAMA BIRTH CERTIFICATE: Suit contesting Obama's citizen...

The U.S. Supreme Court will consider Friday whether to take up a lawsuit challenging President-elect Barack Obama 's U.S. citizenship, a continuation of a New Jersey case embraced by some opponents of Obama's ... Full Story

“Facts trump speculation”

Since: Dec 08

RationalState

#162682 Jul 5, 2013
"In the Zimmerman case the prosecution will make the following argument. Based upon his own statements to the police dispatcher Zimmerman profiled Martin and followed him in his car, and then exited his car and followed him armed with a gun. Zimmerman suspected Martin of committing a crime and was intent that Martin should not get away. Martin was completely innocent of any crime; he was simply walking home from a trip to the store. Zimmerman was unjustified in pursuing Martin and under the circumstances his conduct was threatening. This, the prosecution will argue, was sufficient to "initially provoke" the ensuing struggle, no matter who struck the first blow. There is no credible evidence that Zimmerman either tried to escape from Martin or that he withdrew and clearly indicated his intent to withdraw from the altercation. Accordingly, under 776.014, Zimmerman may not claim that he acted in self-defense."

“Facts trump speculation”

Since: Dec 08

RationalState

#162683 Jul 5, 2013
Justice LRS wrote:
<quoted text>
Surely, you understand what "in general" means? Then again, maybe you don't.
Surely you understand what FALSE means?

Play Justice LRS: The point being, the tables can be turned on the "aggressor".

Not in Florida, sonny. Maybe you should take off your play law robes and set up your choo choo train set.
Justice LRS

Shreveport, LA

#162684 Jul 5, 2013
wojar wrote:
<quoted text>
Not in Florida.
See Johnson v. State, 65 So.3d 1147 (3rd Dist. 2011)
Vila v. State, 74 So.3d 1110 (5th Dist. 2011)
http://tinyurl.com/cr9mwb9
"Florida Cases Interpreting Section 776.041: Person Who "Initially Provoked" Incident May Not Claim Self Defense"
"Were we convinced that the final encounter was of such nature that the issue of self defense was properly introduced and the appellant's blame should therefore be judged by the amount of force he used in resisting his victim, we think the testimony would have been admissible. But the facts believed by the jury point too strongly to a deliberate pursuit by appellant, after the original difficulty had ended and the parties had separated. The law is quite clear that one may not provoke a difficulty and having done so act under the necessity produced by the difficulty, then kill his adversary and justify the homicide under the plea of self defense." (emphasis supplied) Mixon v. State, 59 So.2d 38 (Fla. 1952).
BTW that was a second degree murder case. Guilty and affirmed.
According to Professor Wilson Huhn:
"The West Key Digest system brings up a number of older Florida cases involving the rule that a "wrongdoer" may not claim self-defense. In several of these cases the courts stated that the defendant must be "free from fault" in order to claim self-defense. The quoted language in each case is from the key digest headnote, not the case itself."
Zimmerman will be SOL if the jury believes he instigated the incident and is not free from fault, and it properly follows instructions from the judge.
I'm not so sure.

justifications for use of force will also not apply where the evidence establishes that the defendant initially provoked violence against him- or herself. To claim self-defense in such a scenario, Section 776.041 requires the defendant to demonstrate that he or she used every reasonable means short of deadly force to extricate him- or herself from the situation, and that the degree of force used by the other person (the initial non-aggressor) led the defendant to reasonably believe that he or she was in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm. Alternatively, a defendant who is an initial aggressor may claim self-defense if:(1) in good faith, he or she withdrew from physical contact,(2) clearly indicated to the other person that he or she desired to withdraw and terminate the use of force, and (3) despite the communication and withdrawal, the other person continued or resumed the use of force. See Section 776.041(2)(b), Florida Statutes.

“Facts trump speculation”

Since: Dec 08

RationalState

#162685 Jul 5, 2013
Play Justice LRS: The point being, the tables can be turned on the "aggressor".

Somewhere in that statement the Play Justice sees, "in general", which has nothing to do with the case he was talking about that is taking place in FLORIDA.

Clue to morons: Florida law governs Florida courts.

“Bonjour Hello Buongiorno Hola”

Since: Feb 12

Ottawa

#162686 Jul 5, 2013
Rogue Scholar 05 wrote:
<quoted text>
And the current Canadian government is happy with Obummer Boy?
Obama not only continued most of Bush's programs, he has expanded them!
And the average middle class has gone into a nose dive under Obama. There are SEVEN MILLION fewer employed Americans now than when Bush left the White House!
And was is "More accurately" abut either Greenspan or Bernanke?
Your reading leaves much to be desired, as in this current discussion, I pointed out that Canada-USA relations were much better when GWB was president and frosty at the present time. Do you know what "frosty" means? FYI it's the opposite of "warm".
Justice LRS

Shreveport, LA

#162687 Jul 5, 2013
Justice LRS wrote:
<quoted text>
The point I was making was in reference to your original post. I was pointing out that the aggressor could have the tables turned on him and he ends up being the one claiming self-defense. Just talking about the SYG law in general.
toesap, your little game of deflection is really sad. See the post above? Can you read and understand the last sentence? My other post came from Florida Statutes and it explains how the aggressor may end up claiming self-defense. It's in black and white. Sorry, you lose.
Justice LRS

Shreveport, LA

#162688 Jul 5, 2013
Justice LRS wrote:
<quoted text>
toesap, your little game of deflection is really sad. See the post above? Can you read and understand the last sentence? My other post came from Florida Statutes and it explains how the aggressor may end up claiming self-defense. It's in black and white. Sorry, you lose.
Allow me to rephrase that last part. You lost!

“Facts trump speculation”

Since: Dec 08

RationalState

#162689 Jul 5, 2013
Justice LRS wrote:
<quoted text>
I'm not so sure.
justifications for use of force will also not apply where the evidence establishes that the defendant initially provoked violence against him- or herself. To claim self-defense in such a scenario, Section 776.041 requires the defendant to demonstrate that he or she used every reasonable means short of deadly force to extricate him- or herself from the situation, and that the degree of force used by the other person (the initial non-aggressor) led the defendant to reasonably believe that he or she was in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm. Alternatively, a defendant who is an initial aggressor may claim self-defense if:(1) in good faith, he or she withdrew from physical contact,(2) clearly indicated to the other person that he or she desired to withdraw and terminate the use of force, and (3) despite the communication and withdrawal, the other person continued or resumed the use of force. See Section 776.041(2)(b), Florida Statutes.
Sorry, unlike Professor Hahn, who cited binding case law, you are citing a web site's pure conjecture. Vila c. State and Johnson v. State were both tried recently under 776.041, and the appellate court made it clear what the law is, your favorite web site notwithstanding.

Now put those play judge robes away. Isn't it time for your nap?
wojar wrote:
<quoted text>
Not in Florida.
See Johnson v. State, 65 So.3d 1147 (3rd Dist. 2011)
Vila v. State, 74 So.3d 1110 (5th Dist. 2011)
http://tinyurl.com/cr9mwb9
"Florida Cases Interpreting Section 776.041: Person Who "Initially Provoked" Incident May Not Claim Self Defense"
"Were we convinced that the final encounter was of such nature that the issue of self defense was properly introduced and the appellant's blame should therefore be judged by the amount of force he used in resisting his victim, we think the testimony would have been admissible. But the facts believed by the jury point too strongly to a deliberate pursuit by appellant, after the original difficulty had ended and the parties had separated. The law is quite clear that one may not provoke a difficulty and having done so act under the necessity produced by the difficulty, then kill his adversary and justify the homicide under the plea of self defense." (emphasis supplied) Mixon v. State, 59 So.2d 38 (Fla. 1952).
BTW that was a second degree murder case. Guilty and affirmed.
According to Professor Wilson Huhn:
"The West Key Digest system brings up a number of older Florida cases involving the rule that a "wrongdoer" may not claim self-defense. In several of these cases the courts stated that the defendant must be "free from fault" in order to claim self-defense. The quoted language in each case is from the key digest headnote, not the case itself."
Zimmerman will be SOL if the jury believes he instigated the incident and is not free from fault, and it properly follows instructions from the judge.

“Facts trump speculation”

Since: Dec 08

RationalState

#162690 Jul 5, 2013
"Such force is so great that the person reasonably believes that he or she is in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm"

Sorry, George, the evidence does not support. No DNA under Martin's fingernails. No marks on his hands. No blood at the ends of his sleeves. Meanwhile Z had a scratch on the back of his head, and minor nose injury. Both could have been self inflicted and did not require "force so great".

“Facts trump speculation”

Since: Dec 08

RationalState

#162691 Jul 5, 2013
"The Court of Appeal found that victim's testimony was sufficient to invoke Section 776.041 and instruct the jury that the defendant may not claim self-defense if he "initially provoked" the attack. The court was careful to state that the acts constituting "initial provocation" must be "contemporaneous" with the actions of the victim."

-Professor Wilson Hahn

What part of "initially provoked" does the play law justice not comprehend?
Justice LRS

Shreveport, LA

#162692 Jul 5, 2013
You did read the Florida Statute, right? Then you read how it can be applied. Stick your head in the sand if you want. Makes no difference to me. You lost. Get over it.

“Facts trump speculation”

Since: Dec 08

RationalState

#162693 Jul 5, 2013
And even if George could invoke self defense against a murder charge, it would not relieve him of culpability under manslaughter statutes.

I think jail time is very likely for George. His fellow inmates not like an aspiring cop.

Wait 'till he meets Bubba.
Justice LRS

Shreveport, LA

#162694 Jul 5, 2013
wojar wrote:
"Such force is so great that the person reasonably believes that he or she is in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm"
Sorry, George, the evidence does not support. No DNA under Martin's fingernails. No marks on his hands. No blood at the ends of his sleeves. Meanwhile Z had a scratch on the back of his head, and minor nose injury. Both could have been self inflicted and did not require "force so great".
You're such a frickin' liar! Martin had injuries to his left hand. You're not worth shooting. Moron.

“Facts trump speculation”

Since: Dec 08

RationalState

#162695 Jul 5, 2013
Justice LRS wrote:
You did read the Florida Statute, right? Then you read how it can be applied. Stick your head in the sand if you want. Makes no difference to me. You lost. Get over it.
The Court of Appeal also read the statute, DUH! It's the Court's opinion not your or my opinion that counts. If the court says "this is what the law means" then that is what counts. You may disagree with the court, but your disagreement and $1.25 will only get you a ride on the bus.

Sorry.

"Vila was the initial aggressor and surrendered his right to self-defense."

That may seem at odds with 776.041, but that's not my problem.
Justice LRS

Shreveport, LA

#162696 Jul 5, 2013
wojar wrote:
And even if George could invoke self defense against a murder charge, it would not relieve him of culpability under manslaughter statutes.
I think jail time is very likely for George. His fellow inmates not like an aspiring cop.
Wait 'till he meets Bubba.
I'm not talking about the Zimmerman case. I've made that perfectly clear. Personally, I don't see enough evidence against Zimmerman to convict him but I know better than to try and predict a jury's verdict.

Where does your hatred for Zimmerman come from? Where does your love for Martin come from? Did you know either of them? Once again hatred is making decisions for you.

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#162697 Jul 5, 2013
wojar wrote:
"In the Zimmerman case the prosecution will make the following argument. Based upon his own statements to the police dispatcher Zimmerman profiled Martin and followed him in his car, and then exited his car and followed him armed with a gun. Zimmerman suspected Martin of committing a crime and was intent that Martin should not get away. Martin was completely innocent of any crime; he was simply walking home from a trip to the store. Zimmerman was unjustified in pursuing Martin and under the circumstances his conduct was threatening. This, the prosecution will argue, was sufficient to "initially provoke" the ensuing struggle, no matter who struck the first blow. There is no credible evidence that Zimmerman either tried to escape from Martin or that he withdrew and clearly indicated his intent to withdraw from the altercation. Accordingly, under 776.014, Zimmerman may not claim that he acted in self-defense."
Well I disagree with you. Revelations so far today are, Trayvon's "brother" said the first time he heard the the audio of the screams he was not sure if they were Trayvon's because he didn't want them to be. But later he decided he wanted them to be!!! I wonder if anyone convinced him they were?!?
Next, again they are talking about evidence the PROSECUTOR withheld from the defence. And just why would the prosecutor do that?!?
And about 776.014, all it says if that he wants a SYG defence, he may request a hearing. If the hearing agrees, then there can be no prosecution. But no where does it say he can not bring the issue up at the trial.
Next, Zimmerman, as a PRIVATE citizen can on public property follow anyone. He did not get off the sidewalk and stopped when Trayvon got off the sidewalk and ran around the building. Trayvon then double back and assaulted him.
You still have not explained what right Trayvon had to assault Zimmerman!!! Why, are you a coward?

“Bonjour Hello Buongiorno Hola”

Since: Feb 12

Ottawa

#162698 Jul 5, 2013
Justice LRS wrote:
<quoted text>
You're such a frickin' liar! Martin had injuries to his left hand. You're not worth shooting. Moron.
I've read the exchanges between you and wojar. So polite and affable and well-behaved were you. And I wondered : How long can that last before ad hominem, filth and profanity spring forth? And I answered my own question : Why, the moment wojar stuffs him (which he did after the initial exchange but you didn't get it) and he has no intelligent reply. And there it is : "You're such a frickin' liar! Martin had injuries to his left hand. You're not worth shooting. Moron."

And I noted "You're not worth shooting. Moron." Yup, more death threats that you set aside for the time being. For now. So far, you've threatened to deport wojar, now considered shooting him, threatened to rough me up, hoped that my plane carrying my wife and over 150 passengers would crash 'cuz I showcased your ignorance to one and all, threated LTR with death, not to mention mumbling that even Air Force 1 can loose bolts.

LMAO (Justice ha ha LRS tm reg'd)
Justice LRS

Shreveport, LA

#162699 Jul 5, 2013
wojar wrote:
<quoted text>
The Court of Appeal also read the statute, DUH! It's the Court's opinion not your or my opinion that counts. If the court says "this is what the law means" then that is what counts. You may disagree with the court, but your disagreement and $1.25 will only get you a ride on the bus.
Sorry.
"Vila was the initial aggressor and surrendered his right to self-defense."
That may seem at odds with 776.041, but that's not my problem.
This is what statute says: Alternatively, a defendant who is an initial aggressor may claim self-defense if:(1) in good faith, he or she withdrew from physical contact,(2) clearly indicated to the other person that he or she desired to withdraw and terminate the use of force, and (3) despite the communication and withdrawal, the other person continued or resumed the use of force.

There it is. Plain and simple. Each case is obviously going to have its own set of circumstances that determine the verdict. We're not talking about any particular case, or at least I'm not. I'm referring to what the statute says. And as you can plainly see, it is possible. It's quite easy to come up with numerous and plausible scenarios.

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#162700 Jul 5, 2013
wojar wrote:
And even if George could invoke self defense against a murder charge, it would not relieve him of culpability under manslaughter statutes.
I think jail time is very likely for George. His fellow inmates not like an aspiring cop.
Wait 'till he meets Bubba.
Justice LRS wrote:
<quoted text>
I'm not talking about the Zimmerman case. I've made that perfectly clear. Personally, I don't see enough evidence against Zimmerman to convict him but I know better than to try and predict a jury's verdict.
Where does your hatred for Zimmerman come from? Where does your love for Martin come from? Did you know either of them? Once again hatred is making decisions for you.
Obama told him whom to hate and whom to love. What ever Obama says, his minions will believe.

“Bonjour Hello Buongiorno Hola”

Since: Feb 12

Ottawa

#162701 Jul 5, 2013
Rogue Scholar 05 wrote:
<quoted text>
Well I disagree with you. Revelations so far today are, Trayvon's "brother" said the first time he heard the the audio of the screams he was not sure if they were Trayvon's because he didn't want them to be. But later he decided he wanted them to be!!! I wonder if anyone convinced him they were?!?
Next, again they are talking about evidence the PROSECUTOR withheld from the defence. And just why would the prosecutor do that?!?
And about 776.014, all it says if that he wants a SYG defence, he may request a hearing. If the hearing agrees, then there can be no prosecution. But no where does it say he can not bring the issue up at the trial.
Next, Zimmerman, as a PRIVATE citizen can on public property follow anyone. He did not get off the sidewalk and stopped when Trayvon got off the sidewalk and ran around the building. Trayvon then double back and assaulted him.
You still have not explained what right Trayvon had to assault Zimmerman!!! Why, are you a coward?
Yup, logic it is. If you're not on Zimmerman's side, you're a coward.

And, rogue-kind change of subject, if you don't like nuclear bombs, you're a nuclear bomb bigot.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Chicago Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Barack Obama, our next President (Nov '08) 5 min Archie Bunker 1,110,549
Amy 9-19 6 min edogxxx 3
Ill. House Approves Legalizing Same-Sex Civil U... (Dec '10) 27 min KiMare 49,842
Song Titles Only (group/artist in parenthesis m... (Mar '10) 57 min RJS 7,783
Israeli troops begin Gaza pullout as Hamas decl... (Jan '09) 1 hr TRD 68,493
Once slow-moving threat, global warming speeds ... (Dec '08) 2 hr Patriot AKA Bozo 46,679
Topix Chitown Regulars (Aug '09) 3 hr edogxxx 98,229
Amy 9-18 5 hr Kuuipo 28
•••
•••

Chicago Jobs

•••
•••
•••

Chicago People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

•••

Chicago News, Events & Info

Click for news, events and info in Chicago
•••

Personal Finance

Mortgages [ See current mortgage rates ]
•••