TexasCHLforum.com

baldeagle wrote:

57Coastie wrote:

snatchel wrote: ...Here is what I am heading to: The burden of proof is TM's responsibility....

Say whaaat? While I will reserve my opinion on the rights and wrongs here, a dead man has a burden of proof to prove what?

Jim

Perhaps it was inelegantly worded? I think he meant it's the prosecution's burden.

sjfcontrol wrote:Then it would boil down to "He said, She said". The end.

Jusster wrote:

baldeagle wrote:I'm only going to address a part of one of your responses.

Jusster wrote:Response to baldeagle:I disagree that even if he provoked the fight he still had the right to self defense.

Then you disagree with the law. http://www.leg.state.fl.us/statutes/ind ... /0776.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

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.

Texas law is quite similar. http://www.statutes.legis.state.tx.us/D ... m/PE.9.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

9.31 (b) (4) if the actor provoked the other's use or attempted use of unlawful force, unless:

(A) the actor abandons the encounter, or clearly communicates to the other his intent to do so reasonably believing he cannot safely abandon the encounter; and

(B) the other nevertheless continues or attempts to use unlawful force against the actor;

As I already stated in my reply to you, No, I don’t disagree with the law, I disagree with your definition of what is reasonable. I don’t believe that the force used by Martin to defend himself from Zimmerman was so great that it justified a reversal of roles. If a BG ends up with a broken nose and some scratches on his head after he attacked me that does not give him the right to use deadly force or claim self defense in my opinion. For all we know Zimmerman could have easily gotten those scratches on his head while he was attempting to fight his way from underneath Martin, not from his head being banged on the sidewalk. I don’t believe that because Zimmerman was yelling for help that he made a clear indication that he wished to withdraw from the fight. And one could argue that he was actually attempting to involve others in the fight when he asked them not to call 911 but to help him restrain Martin. After all he did continue to try to restrain Martin even after he shot him instead of attempting to remove himself from the situation which I believe a reasonable person would do if you were truly in fear of your life.

You can toss all the legal definitions out that you want, it will be up to a jury to decide what is reasonable and whether or not Zimmerman’s version of events is credible. You believe him, I don’t.


Jusster