Court rules for NBC in George Zimmerman defamation case

[Londo_Jowo]

The only one I'm aware of involves illegal acts like assault. If you're aware of a different one link it otherwise stop misrepresenting that statute as though it "hamstrings" someone over having an argument.

It's the "use of force by aggressor" statute 776.041 however, the fact that TM had GZ on the ground thus preventing him from withdrawing from the altercation so even if GZ provoked the altercation by provision 2(a) he regained his right to use force up to and including deadly force to protect himself from great bodily harm or death.

http://www.flsenate.gov/Laws/Statutes/2011/776.041

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.

 

[Sc0rp]

It's the "use of force by aggressor" statute 776.041 however, the fact that TM had GZ on the ground thus preventing him from withdrawing from the altercation so even if GZ provoked the altercation by provision 2(a) he regained his right to use force up to and including deadly force to protect himself from great bodily harm or death.

http://www.flsenate.gov/Laws/Statutes/2011/776.041

I guess you missed all the parts that said "and that"


(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.

You know like AND THAT he has exhausted every reasonable means to escape without using deadly force or the "and that" he communicate he clearly communicate his desire to end hostility. Your quote has those "and that" parts, but you conveniently became blind on those parts. Darn, I'm right again.

 

[TerryMathews]

I guess you missed all the parts that said "and that"

You know like AND THAT he has exhausted every reasonable means to escape without using deadly force or the "and that" he communicate he clearly communicate his desire to end hostility. Your quote has those "and that" parts, but you conveniently became blind on those parts. Darn, I'm right again.

I don't think you even read what you quoted. First you're talking about sub a, then you're taking about sub b. Those are conditioned by or not and.

 

[Sc0rp]

I don't think you even read what you quoted. First you're talking about sub a, then you're taking about sub b. Those are conditioned by or not and.

(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.

Curses! I'm right again. My superior ability to READ thwarts another attempt to strawman what I said.

 

[Londo_Jowo]

If you're pinned down and can't break free you have met the requirements of the statute. None the less there's no evidence that GZ met the requirements for provocation so this whole argument is mute and why he was acquitted of all charges.

 

[Sc0rp]

If you're pinned down and can't break free you have met the requirements of the statute. None the less there's no evidence that GZ met the requirements for provocation so this whole argument is mute and why he was acquitted of all charges.

Subsection (a) and (b) both cover that. The law DOES NOT say 'unless you're pinned and can't get away'.

Also, GZ himself admitted that he reached behind his back for something. Um, a guest urge like that in this situation would qualify as provocation. If Trayvon had a GUN and used it to shoot and kill Zimmerman at that point, he would be justified. I even posted a case in Florida where a guy shot and killed another guy for simply reaching for his waistband.

A quick reminder.
http://www.tampabay.com/stand-your-ground-law/cases/case_128

If Trayvon survived and said he THOUGHT Zimmerman was pulling out a weapon, he would have either been granted immunity or acquitted.

 

[Londo_Jowo]

Yes, had TM thought GZ was pilling a weapon he could have used deadly force, no one has denied that fact. All that the jury can consider is the evidence and nothing showed that to be the case. Everything pointed to GZ legally using force to meet force and was acquitted for doing so. Nothing you can say will change this fact.

 

[TerryMathews]

(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.

Curses! I'm right again. My superior ability to READ thwarts another attempt to strawman what I said.

See italics. You're an idiot and obviously have no idea how to actually read laws. Go away and let the adults talk.

 

[Sc0rp]

See italics. You're an idiot and obviously have no idea how to actually read laws. Go away and let the adults talk.

You're the idiot here, those italics that I put there indicate that not only do the first part of subsection (a) and (b) have to be met, but the REST of it has to be met too!

In (a), not only do the force have to be so great, but you ALSO have to exhaust every means of escape short of using deadly force, like retraining your assailant or PUNCHING HIM BACK. Zimmerman didn't try anything.

In (b) not only do you need to withdraw but you ALSO need to communicate CLEARLY your desire to cease hostilities.

Once again, you've proven that you have poor reading co prehension skills. I've come to expect this from you.

 

[TerryMathews]

You're the idiot here, those italics that I put there indicate that not only do the first part of subsection (a) and (b) have to be met, but the REST of it has to be met too!

In (a), not only do the force have to be so great, but you ALSO have to exhaust every means of escape short of using deadly force, like retraining your assailant or PUNCHING HIM BACK. Zimmerman didn't try anything.

In (b) not only do you need to withdraw but you ALSO need to communicate CLEARLY your desire to cease hostilities.

Once again, you've proven that you have poor reading co prehension skills. I've come to expect this from you.

So now you acknowledge that sub a and sub b are seperate clauses. Good. Now we are getting somewhere.

 

[Sc0rp]

Yes, had TM thought GZ was pilling a weapon he could have used deadly force, no one has denied that fact. All that the jury can consider is the evidence and nothing showed that to be the case. Everything pointed to GZ legally using force to meet force and was acquitted for doing so. Nothing you can say will change this fact.

GZ himself said that he put his hand behind his back, THAT is evidence. It's not hard to argue that doing that would make someone believe that he was reaching for a weapon.

GZ was acquitted for the following reasons:

1) prosecution did a piss poor job presenting the evidence.
2) the jury DID NOT understand the definition of Manslaughter.
3) One of the jurors convinced the rest if the jurors that the only way that they could convict for ANY charge is if it is proven that Zimmerman left his truck with the intent to murder Trayvon. That is functionally first degree murder, which he wasn't charged with.

Look, this debate is NOT over the verdict, it is about someone saying that the provision does not exist. When I proved that it did, you guys wanted to argue with me about it and demonstrate, as terry Matthews did, that you guys don't know how to READ!

 

[Sc0rp]

So now you acknowledge that sub a and sub b are seperate clauses. Good. Now we are getting somewhere.

I never said tha they were the same clause. Either one or the other has to be met, however. They are NOT optional if you are the aggressor. You see, if more options existed, they would be in the statute. Those are the only two granted for an aggressor.

Look, from now on, I'm going to ask you guys to make a flow chart to demonstrate your reasoning. I'll get my red line ready.

If you wish to keep arguing with me, make a flow chart and I'll address it when I get home. Right now I'm at a cook out and have little time to deal with illiterates that don't know how to READ.

 

[TerryMathews]

I never said tha they were the same clause. Either one or the other has to be met, however. They are NOT optional if you are the aggressor. You see, if more options existed, they would be in the statute. Those are the only two granted for an aggressor.

Look, from now on, I'm going to ask you guys to make a flow chart to demonstrate your reasoning. I'll get my red line ready.

If you wish to keep arguing with me, make a flow chart and I'll address it when I get home. Right now I'm at a cook out and have little time to deal with illiterates that don't know how to READ.

Well then I guess you'll just shut up that much faster Dari.

 

[Londo_Jowo]

Yet no matter what you think the statute says, it's not relevant as the jury determined that the prosecution did not prove their case beyond a reasonable doubt so they acqitted GZ on all charges. None of your what ifs or fairy tales will change this fact.

 

[Venix]

"If you run into an asshole in the morning, you ran into an asshole. If you run into assholes all day, you're the asshole."

When every argument devolves into whining about how you're being misinterpreted or your opponents can't read, perhaps it's worth considering that your own poor communication and reasoning skills are at fault.

Sadly, I doubt that our CAPSLOCK OBSESSED friend possesses the capacity for that level of self-reflection. The Dunning-Kruger effect at work.

 

[Sc0rp]

Well then I guess you'll just shut up that much faster Dari.

Sure, I'll just accept your surrender.

Also, why do you keep calling me an old Persian language?

 

[Sc0rp]

Yet no matter what you think the statute says, it's not relevant as the jury determined that the prosecution did not prove their case beyond a reasonable doubt so they acqitted GZ on all charges. None of your what ifs or fairy tales will change this fact.

The statute was removed from the jury instructions, Einstein.

 

[Sc0rp]

"If you run into an asshole in the morning, you ran into an asshole. If you run into assholes all day, you're the asshole."

When every argument devolves into whining about how you're being misinterpreted or your opponents can't read, perhaps it's worth considering that your own poor communication and reasoning skills are at fault.

Sadly, I doubt that our CAPSLOCK OBSESSED friend possesses the capacity for that level of self-reflection. The Dunning-Kruger effect at work.

Well you three are clearly not reading what you're being presented. That's why I keep asking you to make flowcharts because you clearly aren't paying attention to what's being written and/or have some seriously defective logic.

Then when I point out what I so clearly wrote, you devolve into blaming me when you're the ones that clearly can't read. You can't read what I wrote. You can't read what the legislators in Florida wrote. You can't read what the judge wrote. You guys can't read because you have some sort of filter that translates what was written into what you WANT it to be.

That's why you've devolved into trying to personally attack me without making a single relevant point. You just don't like what I'm saying, so you want to believe I said something else.

 

[TerryMathews]

Well you three are clearly not reading what you're being presented. That's why I keep asking you to make flowcharts because you clearly aren't paying attention to what's being written and/or have some seriously defective logic.

Then when I point out what I so clearly wrote, you devolve into blaming me when you're the ones that clearly can't read. You can't read what I wrote. You can't read what the legislators in Florida wrote. You can't read what the judge wrote. You guys can't read because you have some sort of filter that translates what was written into what you WANT it to be.

That's why you've devolved into trying to personally attack me without making a single relevant point. You just don't like what I'm saying, so you want to believe I said something else.

You did say something else Dari. You rewrote the post we are all discussing. Everyone can tell because I quoted it.

People don't generally need to rewrite well written posts.

Flow chart that.

 

[emperus]

Yet no matter what you think the statute says, it's not relevant as the jury determined that the prosecution did not prove their case beyond a reasonable doubt so they acqitted GZ on all charges. None of your what ifs or fairy tales will change this fact.

And so what? Does that mean all of sudden all the questions of what happened that night are resolved? No, it means the prosecution didn't prove their case beyond a reasonable doubt. That is all. It says nothing about innocence. I bet the same people here clamoring about this jurys non quilty verdict all clamored that OJ Simpson is guilty and he got off. The cognitive dissonance in this forum is always breathtaking.

Again, Zimmerman's wife left him the night before the shooting and divorced him after the case, his attorney fired him after the police were called for breaking his wife's Ipod, his friend Taffee doesn't believe him anymore, and his current girlfriend had him arrested for threatening him with a gun and what does Zimmerman do? Take her back (I wonder why.). For the life of me I can not understand why you guys are more vested in him and see better than him than those who know him best. Actually I can.. It's the same reason the he became a Conservative hero and people sent the psycho their hard earned money... You can figure it out.

 

[TerryMathews]

And so what? Does that mean all of sudden all the questions of what happened that night are resolved? No, it means the prosecution didn't prove their case beyond a reasonable doubt. That is all. It says nothing about innocence. I bet the same people here clamoring about this jurys non quilty verdict all clamored that OJ Simpson is guilty and he got off. The cognitive dissonance in this forum is always breathtaking.

Again, Zimmerman's wife left him the night before the shooting and divorced him after the case, his attorney fired him after the police were called for breaking his wife's Ipod, his friend Taffee doesn't believe him anymore, and his current girlfriend had him arrested for threatening him with a gun and what does Zimmerman do? Take her back (I wonder why.). For the life of me I can not understand why you guys are more vested in him and see better than him than those who know him best. Actually I can.. It's the same reason the he became a Conservative hero and people sent the psycho their hard earned money... You can figure it out.

So it can't possibly be that we embraced the case to support and strengthen self defense rights. No, it makes a lot more sense that we all love Latinos and hate blacks amirite?

 

[emperus]

So it can't possibly be that we embraced the case to support and strengthen self defense rights. No, it makes a lot more sense that we all love Latinos and hate blacks amirite?

For the loving Latinos part, it's more like the enemy of my enemy is friend. The other half is correct.

The guy chased a kid who was doing nothing illegal got out of his car with a loaded gun to further follow him, didn't fully head police instructions, claimed he forgot he had a gun and this is a case about strengthening self defense laws? It's one of those cases where the crazies are given an opportunity to expose their crazy. And just like all the right's heroes, given the opportunity, they ultimately implode. (Whatever happened to Cliven Bundy). Have you ever wondered why it is you can only find psychos to stand tall on the positions you espouse?

But keep telling yourself, it was a case to strengthen self defense laws if it makes you feel better at night.

 

[Sc0rp]

You did say something else Dari. You rewrote the post we are all discussing. Everyone can tell because I quoted it.

People don't generally need to rewrite well written posts.

Flow chart that.

Excuse me? Anyone can look at the times my edits were made.

You say that I rewrote my post? Ok, prove it. All I've done so far is edit my posts for typos and ADD to them because I'm typing this on my iPad.

 

[Sc0rp]

So it can't possibly be that we embraced the case to support and strengthen self defense rights. No, it makes a lot more sense that we all love Latinos and hate blacks amirite?

This case has done nothing but put a spotlight on just how stupid the laws in Florida are.

 

[Londo_Jowo]

Florida reviewed the law and determined no changes were required.

GZ was acquitted on all charges and talking circles using what ifs and fairy tales will not change this result.

The media did a great job of serving up the koolaid as people that disagree with the verdict still spew forth the same ole tired half truths, innuendo, and fairy tales that proved to be false or lacking evidence to prove them to be the case.