I don't think there's sufficient evidence to convict him. That said, after reading up on the details, accounts, listening to the 911 calls etc. I'm not convinced the killing was justified, certainly the instigation could have easily been avoided. Zimmerman's version of events seems theatrical, inviable, and inconsistent with the later evidence. That said, the important details are unclear. I would guess that Zimmerman instigated the confrontation (though difficult to believe that either aggressively assaulted the other), after which a struggle ensued. Whether or not firing the gun was justified in the context of the struggle depends on numerous things that, despite the different reenactments, are just too unclear to give a decisive verdict.

Anyone can claim they were in imminent danger and exhausted every reasonable means.

 

Sure, anyone can claim it but if you are claiming self defense, then you are taking on an affirmative defense and thus assume a burden of proof, usually by a preponderance of evidence. In other words, you better prove it and have evidence to support your story.

 

I could say that in any fight, even if I started it with the intention of killing someone.

 

Well, if you had the intention of killing someone, then that's first degree murder charge for you because it was premeditated. Then according to 776.041(1), this affirmative defense does not apply to you.

 

It's almost like saying, you can start something, but if you start to lose, you have the legal right to kill that person. Then, if someone wants to kill, start the fight, start to lose and then use a gun and claim you were in "imminent danger" and exhausted all other options.

 

Again, if "someone wants to kill," that's premeditation and 776.041(2)(a) does not apply.

 

Does that leaves it up to the jury then, to decide if that person is being truthful, or maybe if they were being realistic? The jury could come back and say, they believe Zimmerman overreacted and it wasn't self-defense because he wasn't in danger of dying and didn't exhaust all other options?

 

Yes.

 

A rapist could follow a women, and the women decides to strike first before she's raped, and the rapist get's his ass kicked, then he'd have an excuse to shoot her since he can't rape her. And maybe he was losing the fight, but legally he shouldn't be allowed to kill her after being the aggressor.

 

No, that's "attempting to commit, committing, or escaping after the commission of, a forcible felony" according to 776.041(1). So you cannot raise the affirmative defense.

 

Also, the case I posted in the first post, where he lady fired warning shots when she feared for her life from her abusive husband and got 20 years. It seems this law is applied at random.

 

At a glance, case seems very similar except for a huge difference: Alexander left the room, acquired a weapon from her car, returned to the room and fired warning shots (Florida law incidentally does not allow for someone to use their weapon as intimidation, including warning shots). By taking the action of getting her gun and returning to the scene is inconsistent with a person who is in genuine fear for her life.

 

Even if that route is taken, the prosecutors made a good case that Zimmerman wasn't in imminent danger, and didn't exhaust all other options before using his gun.

 

What is this "good case" that you keep referring to? The prosecution's own witness said he saw Trayvon on top of Zimmerman, beating him MMA-style. What other options did Zimmerman reasonably have?

 

Does this apply when someone is breaking into a house? Or do the rules change then. I'm pretty sure in Florida I can legally shoot someone breaking in.

 

You should read up on the Castle doctrine, which is a legal doctrine that outlines certain protections and immunities while defending from intruders. Here's the link to Florida's castle law: http://www.leg.state.fl.us/Statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&Search_String=&URL=0700-0799/0776/Sections/0776.013.html

 

But, if I notice someone breaking in and don't have a gun or knife but decide to attack them, because they're either going to rob, kill, rape or do all three to me. And while I'm beating up the intruder, they fear for their life and "he or she is in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm AND that he or she has exhausted every reasonable means to escape such danger other than the use of force.", they can legally shoot me if they have a gun?

 

No, this hypothetical person is "attempting to commit, committing, or escaping after the commission of, a forcible felony." So their use of force is not justifiable.

Again, if "someone wants to kill," that's premeditation and 776.041(2)(a) does not apply.

But if there is no evidence, they didn't say it or tell anyone, but that was their intent, they could use that excuse if no one else knows that. Or in a moment, for some reason, decide they are going to kill someone for a reason, they may not tell anyone, and afterwards use that defense. They're not going to admit they had the intent of murder if they are smart.

 

No, that's "attempting to commit, committing, or escaping after the commission of, a forcible felony" according to 776.041(1). So you cannot raise the affirmative defense.

 

They're not going to admit they were wanting or trying to rape the person. They could lie and say she dropped something and they were following her to give it back, or make up any excuse as long as they didn't actually start the rape, and leave physical evidence. So my point is, they're following their victim and before they commit the act of rape she defends herself. So nobody would know their actual intentions, and you could say that about any act until the person actually commits it.

 

No, this hypothetical person is "attempting to commit, committing, or escaping after the commission of, a forcible felony." So their use of force is not justifiable.

 

Oh okay, it makes a difference.

But if there is no evidence, they didn't say it or tell anyone, but that was their intent, they could use that excuse if no one else knows that. Or in a moment, for some reason, decide they are going to kill someone for a reason, they may not tell anyone, and afterwards use that defense. They're not going to admit they had the intent of murder if they are smart.

 

Theoretically yes if you're willing to let yourself get beat up to the extent of imminent death (just "losing" a fight is not sufficient) AND be able to prove that you exhausted every reasonable mean to escape... not to mention that you would need to have preponderance of evidence so the trier of fact rules in your favor. In fact, if that much thought process goes in to arrange such a scenario, it starts teetering towards premeditation.

 

They're not going to admit they were wanting or trying to rape the person. They could lie and say she dropped something and they were following her to give it back, or make up any excuse as long as they didn't actually start the rape, and leave physical evidence. So my point is, they're following their victim and before they commit the act of rape she defends herself. So nobody would know their actual intentions, and you could say that about any act until the person actually commits it.

 

How could someone be a rapist without committing the act? Unless you're a Precog, you have absolutely no way of knowing someone's intentions. So in your hypothetical scenario, the woman would have no justifiable grounds to attack first and claim self defense - unless there's other conditions/factors that you haven't yet made clear in your scenario (e.g. clear indication that she was about to be attacked/raped). That's why you don't have people attacking strangers as a precautionary act against rape.

 

 

Edit: Zimmerman found not guilty. Good.

But a woman like this is found guilty, though she said she was defending herself against her abusive husband?

But a woman like this is found guilty, though she said she was defending herself against her abusive husband?

 

Facts of the case were significantly different as stated earlier: Alexander left the room during the argument, acquired a weapon from her car, returned to the room and fired warning shots (Florida law incidentally does not allow for someone to use their weapon as intimidation, including warning shots). By taking the action of getting her gun and returning to the scene is inconsistent with a person who is in genuine fear for her life. In particular, it is important to look at precedent caselaw in Florida (Gibbs v. State 789 So.2d 443, 2003), which states that you are specifically prohibited from invoking justifiable self-defense if the other party's purportedly threatening actions amounted only to "words or conduct without force."

By taking the action of getting her gun and returning to the scene is inconsistent with a person who is in genuine fear for her life

I don't think it's inconsistent, but I can imagine that the jury thought so. I also think that it's obvious that she returned to the scene, because it is her husband and her house? :S

Police grabbing a kid and firing gun shots at unarmed protesters

Dafuq is going on in America :|

Police grabbing a kid and firing gun shots at unarmed protesters

 

Welcome to America.

 

Dafuq is going on in America :|

 

S.S.D.D.

I don't think it's inconsistent, but I can imagine that the jury thought so. I also think that it's obvious that she returned to the scene, because it is her husband and her house? :S

 

No, no, this is America. You can stalk a kid and shoot him, but defending yourself against an abusive husband is quite illegal. Don't be silly!

I don't think it's inconsistent, but I can imagine that the jury thought so. I also think that it's obvious that she returned to the scene, because it is her husband and her house? :S

 

You know what really hurt her credibility - aside from the forensic evidence?

 

It was few months after the incident: Alexander was released on bail and instructed by the sitting judge not to have contact with Gray. So of course she disobeys that order, seeks out Gray at his home and physically attacks him, giving him a black eye. She ended up getting her bail revoked, getting charged with battery, and having a restraining order filed against her.

 

Trying to connect the Alexander case with the Zimmerman case is akin to comparing apples with oranges. Even Alexander's own attorney Kevin Cobbin admits how they're "two very different cases" and that the Alexander case bears no similarity to Zimmerman's case.

With after the incident you mean after the warning shots? Or after the domestic abuse?

 

[edit] Oh, I just read that she shot while the kids were standing next to their father. Wait, another thing: She just gave birth to their child (9 days earlier) ... tha fuck?

Okay, the incident is the warning shots.

With after the incident you mean after the warning shots? Or after the domestic abuse?

 

[edit] Oh, I just read that she shot while the kids were standing next to their father. Wait, another thing: She just gave birth to their child (9 days earlier) ... tha fuck?

Okay, the incident is the warning shots.

 

There's a lot of facts that haven't been covered in-depth by the media:

 

1) Alexander fired the gun into the wall, which was mere inches from Gray's head. Forensic evidence did not back up her account that she fired at the ceiling. It is worth noting that there were kids in the same room before the shooting.

 

2) Before the gunshot, Gray and his kids were about to leave the home, as indicated by the 911 call (also relevant is the fact that Alexander never called 911, either before or after the shooting).

 

3) Alexander bypassed multiple exits and entered the garage to retrieve her gun. Once she retrieved her firearm from the vehicle in the garage, she re-entered the home and re-engaged the victims

 

4) Alexander claimed the garage door didn't work. However, she parked her vehicle in the garage the previous day, closing the garage door after parking her vehicle. Not to mention Gray and the kids entered the house through the garage door the morning of the incident. There was no indication from subsequent police investigation that the garage door was broken. In fact, there was only indication the garage door was functioning.

 

5) Alexander did not leave the house from a window in the master bedroom, from the rear exit of the home (the sliding glass doors in the dining room), the front door (which was unobstructed and wide open), or the garage door. In fact, she bypassed all these possible exits and went to retrieve her gun instead.

 

6) After the shooting, Alexander decided to disobey judge's instructions for bail, sought out her husband and physically assaulted him. She claimed she had an alibi before admitting she was at the husband's home.

 

7) On the way to jail, a small cut appeared on Alexander's eye that was not there prior to her being placed in the backseat of the police car and being transported; this was corroborated by another police officer present. However, Alexander tried to claim it was because of her husband.

 

 

 

So no, the Alexander case isn't simply about a woman defending herself against an abusive husband.

oh

I do hope the people feigning self-important outrage over the fact Alexander is facing 20 years in jail did the same thing when Orville Lee Wollard was sentenced 20 years for firing his gun in his house.

 

Oh what's that? You never heard of him (or Erik Weyant and the nameless others in Florida prison)? Hmm, I guess the media doesn't cover cases that involve white defendants and stand-your-ground laws because it doesn't trigger white guilt; or cases where Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton & the gang make claims that it's all about racial inequality and not about the facts and evidence - hey does the name Tawana Brawley ring any bells? Or maybe it's because Wollard did not look like Obama's son as he claimed Trayvon might have.

 

Attack Florida's minimum mandatory aspect of the law all you want but to draw parallels between the Alexander case and the Zimmerman case frankly shows sheer ignorance and superficial understanding of the law.

Dafuq is going on in America :|

Nicki Minaj, obviously.

I do hope the people feigning self-important outrage over the fact Alexander is facing 20 years in jail did the same thing when Orville Lee Wollard was sentenced 20 years for firing his gun in his house.

 

Oh what's that? You never heard of him (or Erik Weyant and the nameless others in Florida prison)? Hmm, I guess the media doesn't cover cases that involve white defendants and stand-your-ground laws because it doesn't trigger white guilt; or cases where Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton & the gang make claims that it's all about racial inequality and not about the facts and evidence - hey does the name Tawana Brawley ring any bells? Or maybe it's because Wollard did not look like Obama's son as he claimed Trayvon might have.

 

Attack Florida's minimum mandatory aspect of the law all you want but to draw parallels between the Alexander case and the Zimmerman case frankly shows sheer ignorance and superficial understanding of the law.

You can pick out as many cases of white people as you like, there will still be far more black people and that's because there is still racism, especially amongst the police. Not everybody knows the law inside and out and these cases show if anything that there should be changes.

You can pick out as many cases of white people as you like, there will still be far more black people and that's because there is still racism, especially amongst the police. Not everybody knows the law inside and out and these cases show if anything that there should be changes.

 

The point wasn't whether or not African-Americans are treated equally by the police - after all, that's a whole separate discussion.

 

The point is that in these two cases that have been brought up - Alexander and Zimmerman - there is absolutely no evidence that it was racially motivated and/or influenced. Yet people (I'm looking at the numerous legal scholars and professors from the prestigious Facebook University) are still making it a race issue and many are suggesting that somehow the facts and evidence don't matter or even shouldn't matter. There are many instances where African-Americans are not treated equally in terms of the law; these cases are not those instances.

 

What happened to Trayvon was a tragedy; no parent should ever have to bury their child. But the criminal justice system prevented what was a tragedy from turning into a travesty. It is vile and inexcusable to suggest that the decision to put Zimmerman in legal jeopardy should be affected, for reasons of "equity" or "racial justice," by external political considerations; to do so would undermine the very fundamental principles of our legal system. There was absolutely no evidence that Zimmerman was guilty and to put him away in prison on pure speculation would have been shameful and disgraceful.

 

And while we're on the note of shameful and disgraceful... why aren't people talking more about how news outlets selectively edited Zimmerman’s 911 call to make him sound racist? Would this case even have received any substantial coverage if the media hadn't been quick to alter the facts in order to fit the narrative they were pitching? To be honest, this is where the outrage should be funneled into. These past couple of months, I came to the sad realization that we live in the Misinformation Age: we were able to see first-hand the dark underside of the internet age as a man's entire reputation was ruined irreparably before all of the facts and evidence turned up.