MNGunTalk.com

aaron878 wrote:

illbits wrote:I heard that he lost track of the kid and was walking back to his vehicle when he was suddenly attacked.

Can you please point me to the news story that states this? I've read many articles but this wasn't in any of them.

I have read that the 911 calls contradict Zimmerman's statement. But I haven't seen his statement because it wasn't released and Zimmerman hasn't commented to the press.

In your posts, you have already convicted. What do you need evidence for. Look in the mirror at a racist, you only think in black and white.

illbits wrote:

Heffay wrote:

illbits wrote:You have no idea what you're talking about. The absence of provocation or aggression is one of the cornerstones of a self-defense argument in MN. I don't say this often but GET OFF MY SIDE.

So you should be able to defend yourself absent any threat or aggression??

Are you suggesting that you should be able to shoot someone if you "feel" afraid?

Very funny Heffay. The absence of provocation or aggression on the part of the person claiming self defense is what I meant. In other words the defendant must be an unwilling participant. You can't go kick someone's ass and shoot them when you lose. Where do you come up with this sh!t. I guess you think it's fun to deliberately spread misinformation.

I knew I must have misunderstood you. This doesn't appear to be a case with an absence of provocation or aggression. Also, the stand your ground laws being discussed don't mention that at all, as far as I can see. But you're opposed to having that put into the stand your ground law? Why?

infidel wrote:

aaron878 wrote:

illbits wrote:I heard that he lost track of the kid and was walking back to his vehicle when he was suddenly attacked.

Can you please point me to the news story that states this? I've read many articles but this wasn't in any of them.

I have read that the 911 calls contradict Zimmerman's statement. But I haven't seen his statement because it wasn't released and Zimmerman hasn't commented to the press.

In your posts, you have already convicted. What do you need evidence for. Look in the mirror at a racist, you only think in black and white.

Pretty sure I've consistently said that the race issue is beside the point.

Keep spinning though, if you keep babbling someone may believe you.

JeremiahMN wrote:So your in agreement that Zimmerman should be arrested? The 911 call clearly he states he was following this kid. That seems pretty willing to enter the situation.

If he tried to forcefully detain the kid I would call that assault and aggression. He is not authorized to do that under the circumstances. On the other hand, if he followed and observed as neighborhood watch fold are trained to do by the police and was then suddenly attacked as he claimed in his statement, then it would be a matter of wheather he was assaulted with deadly force. I have not made up my mind on his guilt or innocence, and anyone who has without the facts is just witch hunting. I'll say it again, wait for the facts if you plan to judge him.

Heffay wrote:I knew I must have misunderstood you. This doesn't appear to be a case with an absence of provocation or aggression. Also, the stand your ground laws being discussed don't mention that at all, as far as I can see. But you're opposed to having that put into the stand your ground law? Why?

Because it is already codified in law appropriately. Stand your ground law won't erase existing self defense law except for the duty to retreat.

illbits wrote:Because it is already codified in law appropriately. Stand your ground law won't erase existing self defense law except for the duty to retreat.

But apparently it isn't, because others have used stand your ground to defend aggressive actions.

Why are you opposed to codifying the requirement? You only get protection from stand your ground if you act in the manner you are suggesting, but you don't want the law to actually say that?

Heffay wrote:

illbits wrote:Because it is already codified in law appropriately. Stand your ground law won't erase existing self defense law except for the duty to retreat.

But apparently it isn't, because others have used stand your ground to defend aggressive actions.

Why are you opposed to codifying the requirement? You only get protection from stand your ground if you act in the manner you are suggesting, but you don't want the law to actually say that?

Because it is already codified in law appropriately.

Is there a George Zimmerman Legal Defense Fund anywhere?

This guy is backed up against the wall and alone.

Al Sharpton and Farrakan want to string this guy up.

The local 'neighborhood watch' foot patrols go un-armed

Awareness,
Avoidance,
De-Escalation,
Retreat.

Call 911,
Be a Good Witness.

I think this incident will 'retire' the phrase 'Stand your ground' (although that has orgins in a Kentucky Supreme Court ruling, I believe.)

Better start using 'Defense of Dwelling and Person'

infidel wrote: In your posts, you have already convicted. What do you need evidence for. Look in the mirror at a racist, you only think in black and white.

aaron878 wrote: Pretty sure I've consistently said that the race issue is beside the point.

Keep spinning though, if you keep babbling someone may believe you.

aaron878, I really am sorry for implicating you in something you did not do. I had you confused with someone else. Seriously you have my apology. Twice in one week I am eating crow.

illbits wrote:Because it is already codified in law appropriately.

Apparently not, as others have pointed out. At this point, the only reason I can figure out for your opposition to what I'm saying is that I'm saying it.

Bye.

illbits wrote:In other words the defendant must be an unwilling participant.

I've pointed it out before, and I'm going to do it again.

There's nothing in Minnesota law about being an "unwilling participant". It's not in statute, it's not in case law, it's not there, period.

Despite what it says in Joel's book.

MN Supreme Court, State VS Basting 1997

Heffay wrote:

illbits wrote:Because it is already codified in law appropriately.

Apparently not, as others have pointed out. At this point, the only reason I can figure out for your opposition to what I'm saying is that I'm saying it.

Bye.

Are you implying that would not be a good enough reason? SERIOUSLY???

illbits wrote:MN Supreme Court, State VS Basting 1997

http://caselaw.findlaw.com/mn-supreme-court/1180453.html does not contain the phrase "unwilling participant".

The elements of self-defense are (1) the absence of aggression or provocation on the part of the defendant;  (2) the defendant's actual and honest belief that he or she was in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm;  (3) the existence of reasonable grounds for that belief;  and (4) the absence of a reasonable possibility of retreat to avoid the danger.  State v. McKissic, 415 N.W.2d 341, 344 (Minn.App.1987) (citing State v. Johnson, 277 Minn. 368, 373, 152 N.W.2d 529, 532 (1967));  Minn.Stat. § 609.06, subd. 1(3) (1996).9  The degree of force used in self-defense must not exceed that which appears to be necessary to a reasonable person under similar circumstances.  McKissic, 415 N.W.2d at 344 (citing State v. Bland, 337 N.W.2d 378, 381 (Minn.1983)).   A defendant has the burden of going forward with evidence to support a claim of self-defense.   State v. Graham, 371 N.W.2d 204, 209 (Minn.1985).   Once it is raised, the state has the burden of disproving one or more of these elements beyond a reasonable doubt.  State v. Spaulding, 296 N.W.2d 870, 875 (Minn.1980).

Close enough for me!

Taken from here: http://caselaw.findlaw.com/mn-supreme-c ... 80453.html