The Zimmerman verdict

Sensei Canna offers insight into the real world of self defense!

Moderator: Van Canna

Re: The Zimmerman verdict

Postby Van Canna » Fri Jul 19, 2013 9:09 pm

So insulting words all the way home. Sometimes just the words alone in 'internal dialogue' can trigger physical violence, or violent thoughts.
Van
User avatar
Van Canna
 
Posts: 44606
Joined: Thu Mar 11, 1999 6:01 am

Re: The Zimmerman verdict

Postby Feur » Sat Jul 20, 2013 6:13 am

coffee locked in vacuum jars locked in fridges stays fresh! :mrgreen:
User avatar
Feur
 
Posts: 227
Joined: Sat Mar 23, 2013 4:50 pm
Location: Banff AB

Re: The Zimmerman verdict

Postby Van Canna » Sat Jul 20, 2013 7:29 pm

This by Attorney Branca, author of the 'law of self defense' a great book I bought years back.


http://legalinsurrection.com/2013/07/zi ... es-charge/

Andrew F. Branca is an MA lawyer and author of the seminal book “The Law of Self Defense,” now available in its just released 2nd Edition, which shows you how to successfully fight the 20-to-life legal battle everyone faces after defending themselves. UPDATE: July 5, 2013 is the LAST DAY to take advantage of the 30% pre-order discount, only $35, plus free shipping. To do so simply visit the Law of Self Defense blog.

BREAKING: ”The Law of Self Defense, 2nd Edition” is now also being carried by Amazon.com, at list price but with a commitment for 2-day delivery. A Kindle version to come within a week or so (I hope).

Many thanks to Professor Jacobson for the invitation to guest-blog on the Zimmerman trial here on Legal Insurrection!

You can follow Andrew on Twitter on @LawSelfDefense (or @LawSelfDefense2 if I’m in Twitmo, follow both!)on Facebook, and at his blog, The Law of Self Defense
.
Van
User avatar
Van Canna
 
Posts: 44606
Joined: Thu Mar 11, 1999 6:01 am

Re: The Zimmerman verdict

Postby mhosea » Sat Jul 20, 2013 9:07 pm

I thought the defense did a great job of establishing that Martin was on top of Zimmerman when he was shot and that it was Zimmerman who was yelling frantically for help. He was also witnessed yelling for help. I think anyone wishing to find fault with Zimmerman's judgment throughout the incident will find many opportunities to criticize him, but it seemed like self-defense to me in Zimmerman's mind. There don't seem to be any legitimate foundations for the racial overtones that have been attributed to the case. It does not seem to be a very good proxy for anything, except as has been noted above, a cautionary tale about rushing to judgment. And if you're young, quick, and 70 yards from safety when some "creepy-ass cracker" is stalking you, just keep running.

BTW, I found the discussion of what "cracker" meant as somewhat amusing. I suppose we can forgive people who did not grow up in the south for such things. I would not advise using the word if you visit the south. I also recommend that you pretend that your car does not have a horn.
Mike
User avatar
mhosea
 
Posts: 1142
Joined: Fri Jun 30, 2006 9:52 pm
Location: Massachusetts

Re: The Zimmerman verdict

Postby Van Canna » Sat Jul 20, 2013 9:47 pm

Thanks Mike. Good points.

This is something of interest from Atty Branca...

http://legalinsurrection.com/2013/07/fl ... lly-works/
Van
User avatar
Van Canna
 
Posts: 44606
Joined: Thu Mar 11, 1999 6:01 am

Re: The Zimmerman verdict

Postby mhosea » Mon Jul 22, 2013 6:48 pm

That is very interesting. It seems that the strategic decision not to seek an evidentiary hearing on immunity under the statute effectively made the statute irrelevant in this case. And now for some reason it is the focus of attention? Charles Krauthammer pointed out the other day that focusing on so-called "stand your ground" laws was simply an attempt to divert the reaction to the Zimmerman verdict in advance of being forced to admit that civil rights charges against Zimmerman were not in the cards. Ironically, no sooner had Krauthammer uncharacteristically praised the president for a "touch of sanity" in his initial remarks about the verdict, than the president comes out with the "Trayvon Martin could have been me 35 years ago" business.

On a random note, I stumbled on to some web site about questions the police supposedly should have asked George Zimmerman. Some of them were OK, but one of them was "How was he smashing your head into the concrete? Did he grab your hair or your ears?" I found that false dichotomy really depressing.
Mike
User avatar
mhosea
 
Posts: 1142
Joined: Fri Jun 30, 2006 9:52 pm
Location: Massachusetts

Re: The Zimmerman verdict

Postby Van Canna » Mon Jul 22, 2013 9:39 pm

Let's listen to Mas Ayoob...he says it all.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EsQeTKnD_f0
Van
User avatar
Van Canna
 
Posts: 44606
Joined: Thu Mar 11, 1999 6:01 am

Re: The Zimmerman verdict

Postby mhosea » Tue Jul 23, 2013 2:51 am

Great video. Thanks. Let's hope the cooler heads prevail in the current political climate.
Mike
User avatar
mhosea
 
Posts: 1142
Joined: Fri Jun 30, 2006 9:52 pm
Location: Massachusetts

Re: The Zimmerman verdict

Postby Van Canna » Tue Jul 23, 2013 11:21 am

BOSTON (AP) — U.S. Sen. Elizabeth Warren is questioning the wisdom of so-called ‘‘stand your ground’’ laws following the acquittal of George Zimmerman in the shooting death of Florida teenager Trayvon Martin.

Asked if Zimmerman should face federal civil rights charges in the death of Martin, who was black, Warren said the Justice Department is considering the question, but the jury has spoken.

The Massachusetts Democrat said the goal should be to create a country ‘‘not just where some of us are safe, but where all of our children are safe.’’

Fellow Democratic Sen. Edward Markey questioned whether the laws might embolden someone who is armed to pursue an unarmed individual and then fire if that person turns to confront them.
Van
User avatar
Van Canna
 
Posts: 44606
Joined: Thu Mar 11, 1999 6:01 am

Re: The Zimmerman verdict

Postby mhosea » Tue Jul 23, 2013 6:08 pm

I wasn't expecting any of our delegation to be reasonable on the matter. Constitutionally I doubt there is anything the federal government can do about how states choose to process and adjudicate self-defense claims. Our senators are all bark and no bite on that particular matter. Everybody's got an opinion, and theirs isn't worth more than anybody else's on that one. However, federal politicians who are still stinging over recent gun control failures are probably trying to work out how they can use this issue to advance that agenda. I'm not sure they've got it worked out yet, but I can just sense that's what they're really up to.
Mike
User avatar
mhosea
 
Posts: 1142
Joined: Fri Jun 30, 2006 9:52 pm
Location: Massachusetts

Re: The Zimmerman verdict

Postby Van Canna » Thu Jul 25, 2013 1:08 am

Van
User avatar
Van Canna
 
Posts: 44606
Joined: Thu Mar 11, 1999 6:01 am

Re: The Zimmerman verdict

Postby Van Canna » Fri Jul 26, 2013 6:36 pm

Van
User avatar
Van Canna
 
Posts: 44606
Joined: Thu Mar 11, 1999 6:01 am

Re: The Zimmerman verdict

Postby Van Canna » Sat Jul 27, 2013 11:04 am

Van
User avatar
Van Canna
 
Posts: 44606
Joined: Thu Mar 11, 1999 6:01 am

Re: The Zimmerman verdict

Postby Steve Hatfield » Mon Aug 05, 2013 8:36 pm

Late to the party here.........

I worked for the Palm Beach County Sheriffs Office at the courthouse there in 2006 where I provided security for a stand your ground trial. Norman Borden was threatened by three suspected gang members in his neighborhood. Facts were actually a tad more odd than the zimmerman trial.
1. Borden, who was white, was out walking his dog and three BM suspected gang members drove by him and threatened him with bats.
2. Borden tells his friends to leave the neighborhood and goes back into his house. Comes out a short time later to walk his dog again, this time he's armed with a 9mm.
3. Sure enough the three return and attempt to run him over with their suv. Borden sidesteps in between some fenceposts, the suv hits the fence posts, Borden commences to put a bout a six inch pattern through the drivers side windshield. End of suv.
(now if he had stopped right there he probably wouldn't have been charged. But he then walks up to the side of the suv and continues to fire into the side windows at the remaining occupants.)
4. Much public outcry from certain members of the community and bingo, a trial is born.
5. Borden is found not guilty and acquitted.

Differences.
1. In this trial the criminal records and gang affiliation was allowed in the trial showing the victims lifestyles and preferences.
2. At that time in Palm Beach County gang violence and crime was going ballistic. The majority of the community was sick and tired of hearing gang anything. So it was primed for offering an acquittal.
I think the stand your ground laws are a direct result of communities getting sick and tired of bad guys getting away with a variety of crimes.

Steve
User avatar
Steve Hatfield
 
Posts: 118
Joined: Mon Dec 20, 2010 9:29 pm
Location: Murphy North Carolina

Re: The Zimmerman verdict

Postby Van Canna » Mon Aug 05, 2013 10:24 pm

(now if he had stopped right there he probably wouldn't have been charged. But he then walks up to the side of the suv and continues to fire into the side windows at the remaining occupants.)


Maybe he was pre-empting the passengers intent to come out shooting.

I'd be interested to know what reason he gave for firing at the occupants and whether they were armed.
Van
User avatar
Van Canna
 
Posts: 44606
Joined: Thu Mar 11, 1999 6:01 am

PreviousNext

Return to Van Canna's Self Defense Realities

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest