namelesstavern.net

Menelvir wrote:After reading a bit more about the woman's case, I don't really see many similarities.

If the threat to your life is imminent, it is unreasonable to expect that you can willingly leave the situation (remove yourself from the source of the immediate threat) in order to obtain a weapon (by going out to your car), then choose to re-enter the situation (by re-entering the house), re-exposing yourself to the threat, attempt the use of deadly force (by discharging the weapon), and expect that the law will see this as self-defense.

If she had the opportunity to get to her car, it is reasonable to assume at that point, she was able to retreat safely, and that she could have driven away.

Once you've retreated, if you then go back, that is a willful decision to re-enter the situation where you're claiming there was a threat.

If she'd been armed while she was in the house, and he knocked her to the floor and started hitting her, I'm thinking that the law would consider that a singular situation - if at that point she reasonably feared her life was in imminent danger, she might then have been justified in discharging the weapon (and coincidentally killing her assailant).

If Zimmerman was on the ground getting beaten, got up and ran to his truck, retrieved a weapon, and shot Martin, that might have produced a different outcome (depending on particulars). But the general assumption would be that if he could get back to his truck safely, that he could retreat safely from the situation and use of deadly force at that point would not be legally justified.

There are always going to be particulars for any given case that a court will review with a very high degree of scrutiny.

Menelvir wrote:(and if they're married, it's his house too, btw - so it's not like he's someone that has no right to be there)

brinstar wrote:plus, not every married couple co-owns their home. maybe they do, but every story i can dig up says it was "her" home, not "their" home.

leah wrote:

brinstar wrote:plus, not every married couple co-owns their home. maybe they do, but every story i can dig up says it was "her" home, not "their" home.

was just going to say this, ha. the house that the mister and i live in is completely in my name.

Zanchief wrote:You think he would have learned his lesson. Leave no witnesses and you can say what ever you want.

I don't get this story. The arresting officers say they found no gun on him, yet his lawyer says he never unholstered it and just put his hand on it.

Also how the fuck is this turd still allowed to have a gun?

Through his high-profile attorney, he claims the medical examiner, state attorney's office, and Sanford Police Department were all biased against Martin.

"He says their general attitude was that he got what he deserved," Attorney Willie Gary told Channel 9.

Gary said Dr. Bao was made to be a scapegoat and was wrongfully fired from the medical examiner's office. He said his client was prepared to offer proof that Martin was not the aggressor.

"He was in essence told to zip his lips. 'Shut up. Don't say those things,'" Gary said.

Gary said prosecutors never asked Dr. Bao a question crucial to their case.

"He wanted a question that would have allowed him to explain to the jury with scientific evidence how there was no way Trayvon Martin could have been on top of George Zimmerman," Gary said.

Gary said that question never came.