“47% of black adults still feel Zimmerman should be found guilty of murdering the black teenager, compared to 55% in March,” according to a Rasmussen poll. “Now nearly as many blacks (40%) think Zimmerman acted in self-defense.” Yes, well, here’s the actual question: “From what you know, should the man who killed Trayvon Martin be found guilty of murder or was he acting in self-defense?” That’s a very tricky little qualifier there. Especially as respondents are losing interest in the case. “Americans aren’t following the story quite as closely as they were previously. Sixty-seven percent (67%) say they are following news about the shooting incident in Florida at least somewhat closely, with 33% who are following Very Closely. But the overall figure is down from 78% in the two previous surveys.” The big question now: will Zimmerman’s trial be televised?
There’s not going to be a trial. Judge Lester is going to dismiss. He’s bound by Florida law to do so. Unless the prosecutor has some bombshell evidence, everything that’s come out shows Zimmerman had a credible self-defense claim, and the judge is obligated to not only dismiss, but Zimmerman will have immunity from prosecution and civil suit forever.
http://www.leg.state.fl.us/Statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&URL=0700-0799/0776/0776.html
776.012 Use of force in defense of person.—A person is justified in using force, except deadly force, against another when and to the extent that the person reasonably believes that such conduct is necessary to defend himself or herself or another against the other’s imminent use of unlawful force. However, a person is justified in the use of deadly force and does not have a duty to retreat if:
(1) He or she reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the imminent commission of a forcible felony; or
(2) Under those circumstances permitted pursuant to s. 776.013.
History.—s. 13, ch. 74-383; s. 1188, ch. 97-102; s. 2, ch. 2005-27.
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 if:
(a) 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 if:
(a) 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 term:
(a) “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.
776.031 Use of force in defense of others.—A person is justified in the use of force, except deadly force, against another when and to the extent that the person reasonably believes that such conduct is necessary to prevent or terminate the other’s trespass on, or other tortious or criminal interference with, either real property other than a dwelling or personal property, lawfully in his or her possession or in the possession of another who is a member of his or her immediate family or household or of a person whose property he or she has a legal duty to protect. However, the person is justified in the use of deadly force only if he or she reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent the imminent commission of a forcible felony. A person does not have a duty to retreat if the person is in a place where he or she has a right to be.
History.—s. 13, ch. 74-383; s. 1189, ch. 97-102; s. 3, ch. 2005-27.
776.032 Immunity from criminal prosecution and civil action for justifiable use of force.—(1) A person who uses force as permitted in s. 776.012, s. 776.013, or s. 776.031 is justified in using such force and is immune from criminal prosecution and civil action for the use of such force, unless the person against whom force was used is a law enforcement officer, as defined in s. 943.10(14), who was acting 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 was a law enforcement officer. As used in this subsection, the term “criminal prosecution” includes arresting, detaining in custody, and charging or prosecuting the defendant.
(2) A law enforcement agency may use standard procedures for investigating the use of force as described in subsection (1), but the agency may not arrest the person for using force unless it determines that there is probable cause that the force that was used was unlawful.
(3) The court shall award reasonable attorney’s fees, court costs, compensation for loss of income, and all expenses incurred by the defendant in defense of any civil action brought by a plaintiff if the court finds that the defendant is immune from prosecution as provided in subsection (1).
History.—s. 4, ch. 2005-27.
776.041 Use of force by aggressor.—The justification described in the preceding sections of this chapter is not available to a person who:
(1) Is attempting to commit, committing, or escaping after the commission of, a forcible felony; or
(2) Initially provokes the use of force against himself or herself, unless:
(a) Such force is so great that the person reasonably believes that 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 which is likely to cause death or great bodily harm to the assailant; or
(b) In good faith, the person withdraws from physical contact with the assailant and indicates clearly to the assailant that he or she desires to withdraw and terminate the use of force, but the assailant continues or resumes the use of force.
History.—s. 13, ch. 74-383; s. 1190, ch. 97-102.
He never should have been arrested, according to the law. Angela Corey should face disbarrment for this. Not only did she prosecute him in violation of the law, she had evidence in his favor which she excluded from her bogus affadavit.
“There’s not going to be a trial. Judge Lester is going to dismiss.”
Maybe so, but ultimately it doesn’t matter. This case is ancient history, as far as the MSM is concerned.
The political points were all scored in the 1st 72 hours; righteous indignation, protests, personal commentary from the Deceiver-in-Chief, etc.
Notice Al Sharpton & J.J have absolutely zero interest anymore. They’ve already gotten what they wanted. The rest is just administrative detail.
Question #4 I think should have also had a middle ground question that of not having an opinion of guilt or innocence.
“Men believe more strongly than women that Zimmerman acted in self-defense and that the legal system will come to that conclusion.”
I wonder why that is?
TM was a teen and more boyish looking than GZ who ‘started’ the event by following TM perhaps causing emotions to create a version truth rather than a logical fact-based analysis.
Men are the victims of violent crime at a rate 4x or 400% greater than women experience.
Men overall appreciate guns more than women.
I guess different ways to reach decisions and different life experiences.
“There’s not going to be a trial. Judge Lester is going to dismiss. ”
As the way it should be, but then he should not have been arrested in the first place.
Television, is a double edge sword. Are the benefit of televising worth turning the trial into a circus, eg. OJ
what about the fed investigation i wonder
If the court declares Zimmerman has not committed a crime it would be absurd for them to charge him with a hate crime. Hate crime legislation still requires a crime to be committed.
neither party in thi situation is righteous or a hero, but this development is interesting as more facts about both of them is coming out. question: where did the TM fight club stuff come from, i first read about here from some post, anyone want to clue me in about it?
“neither party in thi situation is righteous or a hero”
From everything I read, George Zimmerman was a victim of a thug punk.
Not righteous or hero, just a regular guy I would like to have as a neighbor.
One of the witnesses said the guy on top was hitting him “MMA-style” (mixed martial arts style). Maybe someone took that and paraphrased it into ‘fight club’ stuff.
There were two videos of Trayvon Martin posted online. One is of someone named Trayvon, who looks a lot like him, refereeing a fight between two kids in a schoolyard. The other is a kid who’s purported to be Trayvon having a boxing match outside at night.
I think you can find them at http://www.theconservativetreehouse.com
From the evidence available, Zimmerman seems to have been pretty righteous.
nice use of gil scott heron btw RF, well played sir.
I think a better question to ask would be, “Do you know exactly what happened that night and are thus qualified to pass judgment, or would you like to act as a responsible American adult and shut your pie hole?” The survey question itself is totally bogus because no matter what answer one gives, it’s an answer that presumes all-encompassing knowledge…of which there is none.
Like everything else in politics and race-baiting, it’s all distraction, opportunism, fear-mongering, and pure idiocy. The general public’s reaction to this case is an irremovable stain on American history.
The question say, “From what you know”. That negates your entire comment.
There will be trial and he will be found not guilty and then we’ll have the riots.
There will be trial and he will be found guilty and then we’ll have the riots.
Why would there be riots if he is found guilty?
So what? Why TTAG is so enamored to the story of a stupid fantasy hero wanna-be killing an stupid angry stoned kid seems like a waste of band width. What is TTAG’s point?
Well, possibly because the MSM was using this case as a leverage point to complain about Florida’s CCW program and Stand Your Ground law…
What’s yours?
FLAME DELETED No one has tried to make Zimmerman into a hero. All anyone has ever said is that he doesn’t deserve to be prosecuted for defending himself as permitted by law and that he doesn’t deserve to be the target of a racist lynch mob.
Sadly, this unholy mess has put the pro- carry gun ,stand your ground , castle doctrine, private citizen gun rights, neighborhood watch, and several other issues on trial. All the gun control groups are going to feast on this one if they can convict Zimmerman. This will be great leverage for their propaganda.
There’s not a judge in Florida who has the balls or the political power to dismiss the case against George Zimmerman.
I hope you’re wrong. Did I read in another thread that you’re an attorney?
He’s not wrong. Judges can be influenced by political and public pressure and while a dismissal might be likely in an ordinary case, a high profile case with political and racial overtones is another matter entirely. It shouldn’t be that way, but that’s the reality of the situation.
Yeah, I know that happens. I just hope it doesn’t in this situation.
Vermin, it’s pretty much guaranteed to, unless the judge involved is extraordinarily apolitical and willing to disregard any popular fallout from a decision to dismiss. Such people are extremely rare, so rare as to be practically non-existent.
Yup, Vermin, I’m a retired lawyer. And while I don’t know the players in the Zimmerman case, I do know politics.
As of this week, I’m in my third year of law school.
He who lies best wins. Fins, close discussion. If Zimmerman gets off, he needs to go to his mother’s country. ASAP.
I don’t think the Judge will dismiss for political reasons, either. (Why be responsible for creating a new African-American community outcry when you can push that risk onto a Jury? Anyone who thinks Al Sharpton and JJ will remain disinterested if the Judge dismisses needs to re-evaluate their thinking).
That being said, the only “opinions” that matter going forward at all are those of the twelve Jurors who will hear and decide this case. Hopefully, they will be committed to Justice, not Politics.
No matter how it comes out, George Zimmerman’s life is ruined, and probably no punishment he receives, if convicted, would be any worse than his life will be if he’s acquitted. (Maybe getting shanked to death in Prison would be worse for the few minutes it would take to die under those circumstances.)
Yeah, the Poll question is stupid…”From what you know…” depends entirely on who you’ve chosen to listen to and believe….nothing more….nothing less. Pointless.
Comments are closed.