Ayoob on Zimmerman

[SMS]

Libocrats get it, very well in fact. But they smell blood in the water and see this as a way to advance their agenda. Arguing facts, logic, and law with them does not matter one. single. bit.

Yayyy! Ayoob agrees with us....it's called preaching to the choir. And it's pointless.

I for one have lost hope. I'm keeping my powder dry and gritting my teeth.

 

[Sanford]

Libocrats get it, very well in fact. But they smell blood in the water and see this as a way to advance their agenda. Arguing facts, logic, and law with them does not matter one. single. bit.

 

[Podman]

Good articles. The liberals don't care about the truth, they have their weird agenda, and that's all they care about.

 

[Shooter77]

Well said Mr. Ayoob.

 

[Old Timer]

Mas has always had a good head on his shoulders.
I follow the back woods home web site quite often, including him

 

[rawhide]

Part 5 is posted. Well worth reading
http://backwoodshome.com/blogs/MassadAyoob/

 

[Werewolf]

The operative principle at law is called “disparity of force.” It means that while your opponent(s) may not be armed with a deadly weapon per se, their physical advantage over you is so great that if their ostensibly unarmed assault continues, you are likely to die or suffer grave bodily harm. That disparity of force may take the form of a much larger and stronger assailant, a male attacking a female, force of numbers, able-bodied attacking the handicapped, skilled fighter attacking the unskilled, or – in this case – position of disadvantage.

Ayoob mentions "disparity of force" and the implication is that the principle was not a small part of getting Zimmerman off.

Until I took the CCW class way back in 2003 I always thought that it was a legal principle universally recognized. Not so - at least not in OK and at least not according to the attorney who taught the course (Doug Friesen). The topic came up and was discussed. The class was told that disparity of force was not a legally recognized principle in OK.

My question is does that mean it couldn't be used in a self defense trial in OK as justification for reasonable fear of life and limb?

If Zimmerman had been in OK and tried here under identical circumstances would "disparity of force" have been allowed to have been brought up in his trial?

 

[elance]

Ayoob mentions "disparity of force" and the implication is that the principle was not a small part of getting Zimmerman off.

Until I took the CCW class way back in 2003 I always thought that it was a legal principle universally recognized. Not so - at least not in OK and at least not according to the attorney who taught the course (Doug Friesen). The topic came up and was discussed. The class was told that disparity of force was not a legally recognized principle in OK.

My question is does that mean it couldn't be used in a self defense trial in OK as justification for reasonable fear of life and limb?

If Zimmerman had been in OK and tried here under identical circumstances would "disparity of force" have been allowed to have been brought up in his trial?

i was taught different from you just 3 years later , so if you were taught in error or rules changed then your question is mute moot same same. or if the error was given to me then i need the answer , as i've been operating under the assumption that it's in place .

elance
i also was priviledged to attend a class with ayoob and a couple other notible gun folks a couple of years back . and though he discussed it, i wont hold him to it due to not being a resident "okie" .

training and practice and being current on your info , cant say enough .

 

[excat]

6 is up
http://backwoodshome.com/blogs/MassadAyoob/

 

[Jesse Pinkman]

I didn't read the article, but suspect a can of mace would have saved Zimmerman a broken face and $100,000 in legal fees.