Where exactly do you see anyone saying that?
That’s a non-sequitur. You’re legally justified in killing someone in self defense if you are in fear of grave injury or death. All that is required is fear and an ability to demonstrate to a jury that that fear was reasonable (or at least to enough jurors to make the conviction impossible.) False analogy, bad argument. Further the language you use is oxymoronic “justifies murder” is an impossibility. Murder by its definition is a legally (and typically morally) unjustified homicide.
Agreed. On the other hand if you (BobLibDem) punch a strawman in the nose, it justifies ridiculing your argument.
Hyperbolic perhaps, oxymoronic not. The little pussy got a broken nose. He healed, his victim did not. When you kill someone and he isn’t trying to kill you, I call it murder which, by the way, is what he is charged with. If in tightie-rightie land, calling someone a murderer who has been formally charged with 2nd degree murder is a strawman, then you guys need to re-examine your concept of strawmen.
Yes, it does.
AT least in the sense that Florida caselaw lists a bloodied nose as the type of injury that qualifies as serious bodily injury, and fear of serious bodily injury is the key factor in the allowable use of deadly force.
I imagine the defense will say that a broken nose that’s stopped bleeding is an injury that doesn’t require lifesaving treatment.
Ah ha!
By that I mean: ah ha! This is what you might want to call the key question, at least in my view of the evidence.
I agree. BobLibDem seems to be arguing that a self-defense claim is evaluated purely on the extent of the defendant’s injuries. If the defendant has only minor injuries – or no injuries at all – then his claim of self-defense must fail.
I don’t think this is consistent with the law or with common sense.
No, but a bloody nose is serious bodily injury, and fear of serious bodily injury justifies use of deadly force. This is not murder.
If the jury believes that Martin broke Zimmerman’s nose in a physical fight that Martin initiated, the prosecution cannot win.
Well, it’s certainly fair to call him an accused murderer. But if you call him a murderer, what would you call him if the jury acquits?
Yes, but an EMT that gives reasonably confident testimony about hte nose NOT being broken, together with a doctor that equivocates when asked if he knows when the injury occurred, could well hurt him.
I don’t think you know what an oxymoron is. Saying it “doesn’t justify murder” is oxymoronic because that phrase is self-contradictory. By legal definition murder is not justified. If you had said “it doesn’t justify killing someone” that might make sense. But if you can justify the killing it isn’t murder in the first place. So to say something “doesn’t justify murder” doesn’t make sense, murder as part of its definition is presumed to be unjustified.
Edit to add: “When you kill someone and he isn’t trying to kill you, I call it murder” that’s all well and good but none of the fifty states and their legal systems agree with you, so it’s entirely irrelevant.
This fucked up law? Maybe. Common sense? Not so much.
Where is the common sense in – hey I don’t have any injuries, it’s a good think I shot that guy?
Is it your argument that unless you have serious injuries, you should not be able to claim self-defense in a shooting?
(checks forum name)
(reads thread title)
His opinion is irrelevant? In a forum called IMHO? And in a thread called “Martin/Zimmerman: humble opinions and speculation thread”? Really?
Wow.
It is my argument is that if some isn’t trying to kill you, you probably shouldn’t shoot them.
IMHO doesn’t mean “all opinions are relevant all the time.”
(checks forum name)
(reads thread title)
Yup, it doesn’t mean “all opinions are relevant all the time.” When it comes to the definition of murder, some random guy’s opinion is absolutely not relevant. Because the crime of murder is defined in statute, that’s what having a society of laws is about (having something other than just random opinions spell out the law.)
What’s to stop anyone from shooting anyone they like and then just claiming that they were afraid? How do you prove that someone wasn’t afraid?
Doesn’t just being able to say you were afraid make it possible to shoot anyone you want and get away with it, provided that there aren’t any witnesses and that you kill the person you shoot so they can’t tell their side?
Where is the line if just being afraid is enough to shoot anyone?
Amen. Most fistfights don’t end in someone’s death. At some point, the victor will stop punching. I don’t believe it to be reasonable that Zimmerman was in fear of his life. Perhaps he was, but that was an unwarranted fear.
Some random prosecutor charged him with 2nd degree murder.
This was actually a core part of a massive thread (now closed) and probably many different times in this thread so I’m loathe to get into it. But basically if a person can demonstrate to a jury that there was a situation in which a reasonable person would be in immediate fear of death or grave bodily injury they can justifiable use deadly force to stop the threat.
That’s your answer. Just being able to say you are afraid is not a license to kill anyone for anyone reason. It’s about the totality of the situation, the relationship (if any) between the persons, the physical evidence, the consistency of the statements, basically as I said “the totality of the situation.” If the totality of that situation is one in which a reasonable person would be in immediate fear of death or grave bodily injury then they can use force, even deadly force, to protect themselves.
Well then I find all of your opinions irrelevant. Case closed then? Discussion over?
This is an opinion forum and thread. How can anyone’s opinion be irrelevant? You can disagree with him, but you don’t get to silence his opinion.
Also, I’m pretty sure all he was saying was that to him that scenario is murder. I don’t recall him stating that it was the legal definition of murder at all. Where did he claim that?