Shooting of Trayvon Martin - Page 197

On June 29 2013 05:43 AdamBanks wrote:
Hey phreak you know anything about the use of force in the states? im under the impression that in canada your not allowed to escalate the level of force? Like if im in a fist fight im not allowed to haul out a gun and blast someone because ive elevated the use of force? I dunno any law, so maybe im wrong, how does this work in the states? any ideas? o.o

A person is justified in using deadly force if [he] [she] reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent
1. imminent death or great bodily harm to [himself] [herself] or another, or
2. the imminent commission of (applicable forcible felony) against [himself] [herself] or another.

However, the use of deadly force is not justifiable if you find:
1. (Defendant) was attempting to commit, committing, or escaping after the commission of (applicable forcible felony); or
2. (Defendant) initially provoked the use of force against [himself] [herself], unless:
a. The force asserted toward the defendant was so great that [he] [she] reasonably believed that [he] [she] was in imminent danger of death or great 63 bodily harm and had exhausted every reasonable means to escape the danger, other than using deadly force on (assailant).
b. In good faith, the defendant withdrew from physical contact with (assailant) and clearly indicated to (assailant) that [he] [she] wanted to withdraw and stop the use of deadly force, but (assailant) continued or resumed the use of force.

In deciding whether defendant was justified in the use of deadly force, you must judge [him] [her] by the circumstances by which [he] [she] was surrounded at the time the force was used. The danger facing the defendant need not have been actual; however, to justify the use of deadly force, the appearance of danger must have been so real that a reasonably cautious and prudent person under the same circumstances would have believed that the danger could be avoided only through the use of that force. Based upon appearances, the defendant must have actually believed that the danger was real.

If the defendant [was not engaged in an unlawful activity and] was attacked in any place where [he] [she] had a right to be, [he] [she] had no duty to retreat and had the right to stand [his] [her] ground and meet force with force, including deadly force, if [he] [she] reasonably believed that it was necessary to do so to prevent death or great bodily harm to [himself] [herself] [another] or to prevent the commission of a forcible felony.

In considering the issue of self-defense, you may take into account the relative physical abilities and capacities of the defendant and (victim).

If in your consideration of the issue of self-defense you have a reasonable doubt on the question of whether the defendant was justified in the use of deadly force, you should find the defendant not guilty.
However, if from the evidence you are convinced that the defendant was not justified in the use of deadly force, you should find [him] [her] guilty if all the elements of the charge have been proved.

On June 29 2013 05:44 Felnarion wrote:


The goal is to get Z's MMA practice associated with the "MMA style" of the blows being thrown.

On June 29 2013 05:55 Dosey wrote:
Man this lawyer is just mean. Getting the doctor to call Zimmerman fat and butthurt.

On June 29 2013 05:57 On_Slaught wrote:
Wait.. am I hearing this right or did the prosecution witness just say that Zimmerman asked for medicine concerning pain in his lower back/butt? On top of the fact he had facial bruising and it appeared to her as if his nose was possibly broken at the time? I didn't see the beginning of her testimony but it seems like another witness doing no favors for the prosecution.

On June 29 2013 06:02 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:
So the prosecution is so desperate they are now attacking his medical history/character?

On June 29 2013 06:02 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:
So the prosecution is so desperate they are now attacking his medical history/character?

On June 29 2013 06:06 On_Slaught wrote:
I really like what the defense attny is doing with this cross. Focusing on the fact she saw him a day later and that he looked much worse immediately after the fact. Considering he looked bad even the next day just hurts the prosecution more. Sad objection by the prosecution too. That's a "crap this is hurting my case" obj. The problem is if you do this too many times it makes it look like you are hiding things and it just draws attention to important facts if you lose the obj.