Rooting for the Pats even if it benefits you financially is awful. You're the devil. Going to spend the $25 on a new Yankees hat or a Golden State Jersey?
UPDATE: Judge Delares Mistrial in Case of Self Defense or 2nd Degree Murder
- Thread starter Franisdaman
- Start date
Rooting for the Pats even if it benefits you financially is awful. You're the devil. Going to spend the $25 on a new Yankees hat or a Golden State Jersey?
How could this case possibly be self defense?
Did Weiss have any injuries?
If Weiss was on his back getting his head pummeled like Zimmerman was by Travyon Martin, he'd have an argument.
Weiss tried to act like John Wayne. Mistake.
Did Weiss have any injuries?
If Weiss was on his back getting his head pummeled like Zimmerman was by Travyon Martin, he'd have an argument.
Weiss tried to act like John Wayne. Mistake.
Rooting for the Pats even if it benefits you financially is awful. You're the devil. Going to spend the $25 on a new Yankees hat or a Golden State Jersey?
I hate the Pats, but I have sound logic here:
1st, the Eagles have the most evil fan base in sports. They are diabolical degenerates. I want to see their dreams crushed.
2nd, the Eagles have never won a Super Bowl. I want that to continue forever, so their fans have their dreams crushed always...
I'm not rooting for the Pats, I'm rooting against the Eagles.
Maybe he did call the police. That will come out.
Is it a threat when you disclose that you are armed? Or is it simply stating a fact that you are legally in possession of a firearm?
There's a lot that is going to go come out yet, that is for sure. The witness, the deceased's friend, and Weiss all will take the stand. Who else would take the stand besides character witnesses?
But if Zimmerman pulled the gun on Martin, wouldn't Martin - in self-defense - be justified in attacking and trying to disable or even kill Zimmerman? Why is the guy with the gun given the benefit of the doubt over the person who was unarmed? If a guy has a gun on me and I think he's going to kill me why can't I make every effort to kill him first?
Wow is right. Here is another lie that you have been caught in.
From the article, simply see the part in red below:
According to the complaint:
Weiss, who has a permit to carry a gun, told the police that after feeling threatened by Rahim’s passenger and returning to his car to get his phone and firearm, he warned the passenger that he was armed. Moments later, he told police, Rahim started to yell at him and said that he and his passenger were going to beat up Weiss.
He said Rahim then approached and was a few inches from his face before shoving him in the chest. Weiss then pulled the gun out of his pocket and pointed it at the ground to show Rahim that he was armed. He told police that Rahim then spat at him and told him the gun didn’t look real. Weiss said Rahim then reached for the gun so he backed up and told Rahim to stop.
I don't know. Is it?
threat·en
ˈTHretn/
verb
verb: threaten; 3rd person present: threatens; past tense: threatened; past participle: threatened; gerund or present participle: threatening
state one's intention to take hostile action against someone in retribution for something done or not done.
I READ the article.
Fran does appear to be a moran.
I'd go guilty based on the article - subject to change on additional evidence/testimony. Without being a legal scholar maybe he did meet some self-defense standard, would be a shitty standard though.
Does anyone else think if the shooter was a police officer we wouldn't even be having the debate? Are we holding Weiss to a higher standard than a trained police officer? Perhaps not, just seems odd.
Fran does appear to be a moran.
I'd go guilty based on the article - subject to change on additional evidence/testimony. Without being a legal scholar maybe he did meet some self-defense standard, would be a shitty standard though.
Does anyone else think if the shooter was a police officer we wouldn't even be having the debate? Are we holding Weiss to a higher standard than a trained police officer? Perhaps not, just seems odd.
Possibly, although I don't think Zimmerman pulled the gun on Martin first.
Martin attacked Zimmerman first and was pummeling his head on concrete and then Zimmerman shot Martin.
That's self defense, IMO, not the same as this Weiss case.
Was he safe? Where were the 2 other individuals? What were they saying as he went to get his phone and gun?
Did Weiss make a choice to pursue an altercation or did the deceased? Who threatened whom with physical violence? Who actually struck whom? And did the defendant retreat, which is required, and then act reasonably in self defense?
There's a lot of missing pieces of info that need to be revealed to answer all of those questions.
Only problem is that the idea that Martin attacked first is based solely on Zimmerman's self-serving testimony. We know that Zimmerman chased Martin and we know that his original testimony to the police didn't match the crime scene. We also know that Zimmerman claimed to not know the name of one of the three (3) streets in the development for which he claimed to be a community watch volunteer. What the facts do support is Zimmerman following Martin through the development, exiting his truck, running and cutting ahead of Martin to get between Martin and his home, and attempting to detain him. That's as good a story as the one Zimmerman gave (better actually). So - hypothetically - if Zimmerman DID do that and pulled his gun to try to hold Martin for the cops...playing John Wayne which he had a penchant for...would Martin have been justified in fearing for his life and trying to beat the shit out of Zimmerman to protect himself?
I thought Zimmerman had injuries to his face and head? How did he get those if Martin didn't attack him?
Weiss will have to answer why he didn't stay in his car. There's a lot of unknowns right now.
Weiss, nevertheless, got out of his car with a legally possessed phone and legally possessed gun.
Did Weiss then initiate conflict (threats, shoves) or did the deceased and his friend?
Weiss did not show the gun until getting shoved and spat on by the deceased.
Again, I don't see how this is a cut and dry case.
All you need is a good attorney and at least 1 juror to think, by law, he acted in self defense.
I'm not arguing whether or not Zimmerman was attacked. The question is WHY was he attacked. Would Martin have been justified in trying to disable or kill Zimmerman if Zimmerman had pulled the gun in an attempt to play cop and hold Martin for the police?
That is one reason why you never fire a warning shot but it goes far beyond that. Escalating the situation unnecessarily to a "Shots Fired" situation greatly increases your chances of getting killed (by any number of people involved), arrested, or the injury/death of an innocent party.
FTR, not on the jury but with what we know I would view this as a bad shoot based on the fact that he did retreat to the vehicle to obtain lethal force and then made a conscious decision to unnecessarily reinsert himself into a volatile situation armed with the lethal force he acquired from his vehicle.
Kid was over his head and had no idea what he was doing. IMO that is a common theme with the proliferation of CC permit which require little training.
i will just stand by my prediction that it is an acquittal or hung jury if it goes to trial.
I am just curious what this witness saw and heard and when she arrived and how long she stayed; that is a huge unknown.
Otherwise, it is down to the testimony of:
* The defendant, who is church going and a volunteer (is he believable?)
* The deceased's friend, who threatened violence towards the defendant (is he believable?)
* Character witnesses of the defendant
It's ok Thorne. It might interest you to know that you currently rank 6th on Franisdamoran's all-time enemies list, right between director Joel Schumacher, who nearly destroyed the Batman movie franchise, and Billy Sparks, who lived down the street from him and put dog poop on the handles of his bicycle.
ThorneStockton said:
I READ the article.
Fran does appear to be a moran.
Franisdaman said:
well, it is 100% clear that you are a moran.
I READ the article.
Fran does appear to be a moran.
Franisdaman said:
well, it is 100% clear that you are a moran.
His own version of the story is enough to convict him. Obviously didn't understand "You have the right to remain silent".
Since there was an accident which usually means bump to bumper traffic (or worse if it's right before a light), I would assume that she saw good deal of it up to the shooting.
Yep!
I still think he met the "retreat" threshold and the actions of the deceased and the deceased's friend are going to prevent a conviction
It's not going to help that he had a bumper sticker that read: "“Gun Control Means Hitting Your Target.”
He was safe in his vehicle (That may have been mobile...unsure from story) with locked doors with a gun in his hand, yes. If the other 2 individuals tried to gain entry to his vehicle and he shot them, it's a good shoot. That isn't what happened. Doesn't matter what they were saying.
Weiss made the choice to pursue the altercation with phone and gun in hand. Doesn't matter who threatened whom. Doesn't matter who struck whom. The defendant retreated but then reinserted himself into the fracas which makes it not self defense.
And i totally understand that there is a LOT to come out yet; there might only be 3 witnesses to what transpired....and all Weiss needs is a really good defense attorney vs a county prosecutor
I'd hate to see what would have happened if Weiss had an illegally possessed phone. Shit would have gotten real then!
Doesn't matter if Weiss initiated conflict then. He had armed himself which shows intent.
Doesn't matter when Weiss showed the gun only that he now possessed it having returned to the fight.
The way the jury will side is irrelevant to whether Weiss is guilty. Do you believe OJ is innocent?
He will be asked why he didn't stay in his car; it will be interesting to hear his answer.
But, he did retreat after getting shoved and spat on. What happened from that point until he pulled the trigger will be interesting. Did the deceased continue to come at him? Lots to learn if it goes to trial.
But he was legally armed, correct? How do we know his intent simply by knowing that he possessed a legal firearm? Did he have any intention of using it when grabbing it? I am guessing he would say "no." And I don't know all the laws when it comes to conceal and carry; there will be a lot for a jury to sort thru.
No one knows all the details of the case so we don't know how threatened Weiss felt in this 2 on 1 situation. Is it regrettable someone died? Yes. Is he guilty of murder? I don't know yet but I am guessing he won't be convicted.
And yes, I think OJ was guilty but he had some damn good attorneys.
I have told this incident here on HROT before but I have had a situation of road rage when an individual (who was driving erratically and drunk) approached my car at a stop light. There was a vehicle between us at the light so he was able to somewhat surprise me when I first heard him yelling and then saw him approaching my vehicle. I did have time to draw my concealed weapon and keep it in my hand out of view.
Never got out of the vehicle. Even if he would have started beating on it I wouldn't have gotten out. Had he broken a window out I would have fired. All I did was tell him the police had been called (which they had when I observed his driving) and he was to go wait in his car.
Guy kept carrying on and then it dawned on him he could not see my right hand. He got against my car, leaned over and looked through the windshield and saw my right hand a gun. He immediately got back in his car and drove off. I called the police again and gave an update. He was arrested a short time later for DUI.
Never got out of the vehicle. Even if he would have started beating on it I wouldn't have gotten out. Had he broken a window out I would have fired. All I did was tell him the police had been called (which they had when I observed his driving) and he was to go wait in his car.
Guy kept carrying on and then it dawned on him he could not see my right hand. He got against my car, leaned over and looked through the windshield and saw my right hand a gun. He immediately got back in his car and drove off. I called the police again and gave an update. He was arrested a short time later for DUI.
I bet the amount of shit talking done on a National scale would reduce greatly!
All we have to go on is what is in the article posted by the OP... thats it. Given those parameters if 2 people were ganging up on someone and threatening physical violence over a fender bender, then yes it is reasonably assumed that he felt threatened and ANY force he uses after that is justified, IMO.
It's only my opinion. I'm not going to call you stupid for feeling the other way. Thats what make the world go round... but I am not convicting him BASED ON WHAT I KNOW NOW.
Fortunately, under the law, what your opinion or mine is, doesn't matter.
There is a legal threshold: "Minnesota law imposes a “duty to retreat,” which means that if a person feels threatened, he or she may only use deadly force as a last resort."
You are omitting the key fact: the defendant left the situation, retrieved his gun and re-entered the fight.
Guilty.
Similar threads
Latest posts
-
-
-
-
-
Players file lawsuit against state for privacy rights violations
- Latest: WaterlooChazz