With azile on this one. When we went through our similar incident here we were still able to seat a local jury. I believe he got a fair trial even if some people were unhappy with the turnout. (read: they didn't string up the racist cracker)
_________________ I prefer to think of them as "Fighting evil in another dimension"
Joined: Fri Sep 04, 2009 5:46 pm Posts: 900 Location: In the rain shadow
Diamondeye:
I used the phrase "immune from prosecution" based upon an opinion piece I'd read that was discussing the stand your ground law. That same piece mentioned how the term "provoke" was ill-defined in the law itself. Unfortunately, with the news going so fast on the changing story, that opinion piece seems to have been buried pretty quickly, even though I read it only yesterday. That sucks, because I would have like to have read your reaction to it based upon your experience.
I also wasn't very surprised at the charges coming against Zimmerman considering what I've read about the special prosecutor (she's a bit controversial in that she readily brings charges) and that the lead investigator wanted to charge Zimmerman but was overruled by the first DA.
_________________ Women are from Hoboken, men are from Trenton. ~ Jimmy Kimmel
Joined: Sat Sep 05, 2009 1:28 pm Posts: 476 Location: The 10th circle
This will all come down to an interpretation of the 'Stand Your Ground' law, but since no language can be perfect, and lawyers can find any single word subjective enough to extract and argue any interpretation, it will really come down to the personal biases of the judge and jury, as always.
Joined: Fri Sep 04, 2009 5:46 pm Posts: 900 Location: In the rain shadow
Yeah, it looks like the prosecutor didn't present before the grand jury simply because the state is not proceeding with a first degree murder charge, which is something required in the state of Florida's constitution.
Still can't find that opinion piece But i did find an analysis regarding immunity from prosecution (and civil suits!) vis-a-vis the stand your ground law.
Spoiler:
Quote:
ANALYSIS-Zimmerman's challenge in citing Stand Your Ground 4/9/2012 COMMENTS (0)
NEW YORK, April 4 (Reuters) - To mix metaphors, Stand Your Ground is no Slam Dunk.
The controversial 2005 Florida law grants immunity to people who use deadly force in self defense. In the days since George Zimmerman shot and killed 17-year old Trayvon Martin, critics and supporters both seem to have assumed that if Zimmerman is charged, he could easily seek and win immunity from prosecution under Stand Your Ground.
But don't be so sure. Interviews with nearly a dozen veteran defense lawyers who have experience litigating Stand Your Ground cases suggest winning immunity could be quite difficult.
"Judges do not readily grant these (immunity) motions because they know they can pass it on to the jury," said Carey Haughwout, the public defender for Palm Beach County.
So far, Zimmerman has not charged with any wrongdoing. A special prosecutor, Angela Corey, is still investigating the incendiary case, which carries heavy racial overtones and has stirred a national outcry.
But if charges are filed and Zimmerman does choose to seek immunity, he will face challenges at almost every stage, lawyers said.
The first hurdle will be a special evidentiary hearing in front of a judge, where Zimmerman will have the opportunity to argue that he deserves immunity. But to convince the judge, Zimmerman will have to present a "preponderance of evidence" that he acted in self defense, which under the law means he has to show he had "reasonable belief" that such force was necessary. That is a high bar, and difficult to prove, criminal defense attorneys said.
In cases where the facts are in dispute -- and even if they don't seem to be -- the judge is likely to deny the Stand Your Ground immunity motion, said Ralph Behr, a Florida criminal defense attorney who has filed eight motions for immunity, all of which have been denied. More typically, a judge will choose to have the case go to trial, where the defendant must take his or her chance with a jury, just like other criminal defendants, he said.
"Most judges, I think, are comfortable letting the adverserial system play out before a jury rather than make decisions themselves," said Behr.
Maggie Jo Hilliard, an attorney in Atlantic Beach, Florida, thought she had made a good argument for immunity in the case of 18-year-old Rashad Martinez. The former juvenile inmate had been charged with murdering another former inmate, 19-year-old Tremayne Lovett, and in a motion for immunity under Stand Your Ground, Hilliard cited previous incidents in which Lovett beat up Martinez. She also presented a eyewitness to a confrontation preceding the shooting who believed that Lovett was carrying a gun.
But a judge denied Hilliard's immunity motion in 2010, and after a trial, Martinez was convicted in sentenced to life in prison in February. "I can say I disagree with the jury but it does me no good. I have to trust in the system of justice that we have," said Hilliard.
The Stand Your Ground evidentiary hearings have other risks, as well. Some defense lawyers don't file such motions on the grounds that the hearings give the prosecution an advance preview of the defense's case.
"You're basically conducting a mini trial," said Christopher Frey, a defense attorney in New Port Richey, Florida. "You're putting your cards on the table before you pick a jury."
Before Florida passed the Stand Your Ground in 2005, people were allowed to protect themselves while in their homes and were not required to retreat. The law extended that right to individuals who are attacked in "any other place where he or she has a right to be." While there is no comprehensive data on how many times judges have denied such immunity motions, a review of newspaper accounts and public records by the Tampa Bay Times published last month showed judges have granted immunity just nine times since 2005.
Stand Your Ground does confer some procedural advantages to defendants that aren't available in most criminal cases. Typically, defendants accused of a crime have just one shot to avoid a trial through a motion to dismiss. If there are factual disputes between the government and the defendant, a judge is required to deny the motion without a hearing and allow the case to proceed to trial before a jury. But with the Stand Your Ground law, a defendant has the right to the evidentiary hearing, where the judge has to make factual determinations.
The guarantee of that hearing has made Stand Your Ground popular with defense lawyers. They say the hearings help protect innocent defendants from the ordeal of a trial, but more importantly, give defendants two opportunities to avoid prosecution.
"You get two bites at the apple," said Florida criminal defense attorney James Felman.
But the "preponderance of evidence" standard defendants must clear puts the burden on the defendant. After losing an immunity motion for for one his clients who had been charged with aggravated assault, Orlando defense attorney Mark Horwitz argued to a Florida appeals court that burden should be on the prosecution to prove that the defendant did not act in self defense. The court disagreed.
"Placing the burden on the defendant defeats the purpose of the statute," he said.
(Reporting by Andrew Longstreth)
Follow us on Twitter: @ReutersLegal
I also found an article on stand your ground on a Florida criminal defense attorney's website that seems to imply to me that if the stand your ground law applied to Trayvon Martin defending himself against Zimmerman, then there is no way to apply assault and battery charges on Martin. Of course, that's a big "if" that likely would need to be decided by either a judge or a jury.
Spoiler:
[quoteFlorida’s “Stand Your Ground” Law The Use of Deadly Force, Self-Defense, and Prosecutorial Immunity
In the wake of the Trayvon Martin shooting last February, Florida’s “Stand Your Ground” law has come under increasing public scrutiny. While the current debate over the use of deadly force and immunity is understandable, the quality of the legal commentary on the topic leaves something to be desired. Discussions of Florida’s “Stand Your Ground” law tend to oversimplify the subject or leave out critical analysis of the procedures for asserting prosecutorial immunity under Florida law.
The following article by Jacksonville, Florida criminal attorney Troy J. Webber discusses the historical background of Stand Your Ground in Florida, and what the law actually says in its current form. The article further addresses the procedural aspects for making a claim of prosecutorial immunity.
Florida’s Stand Your Ground Law: What Does it Say? Why was it Adopted?
In a highly publicized move, the Florida Legislature enacted in 2005 what has been popularly known as the “Stand Your Ground” law. This law, as codified in Section 776.012, Florida Statutes, provides that a person is justified in the use of deadly force if either: (1) the person reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself, or another or to prevent the imminent commission of a forcible felony, or (2) the person acts under and according to the circumstances set forth in Section 776.013 (pertaining to the use of force in the context of a home or vehicle invasion).
In effect, Florida’s “Stand Your Ground” law broadens the scope of a self-defense claim in the context of a homicide or other violent crime by establishing a "no duty to retreat" rule. Prior to the enactment of the statute, a person could not use deadly force in self-defense without first using every reasonable means within his or her power to avoid the danger, including retreat. See Weiand v. State, 732 So. 2d 1044 (Fla. 1999); State v. Bobbitt, 415 So. 2d 724 (Fla. 1982). As stated in earlier appellate court decisions, a combatant had to "retreat to the wall" before using deadly force. See Hunter v. State, 687 So. 2d 277 (Fla. 5th DCA 1997). This former duty to retreat before using self-defense derived from the common law, rather than from statute.
Again, as codified under the present statute, there is no requirement of retreat prior to using deadly force. The accused need only establish that he or she “reasonably believed” that such force was necessary to prevent death or serious bodily harm.
If abolishing the common law duty of retreat was not enough, “Stand Your Ground” goes one step further in cases involving home or vehicle invasions. Section 776.013, Florida Statutes, provides that, when an intruder unlawfully enters, attempts to enter, or refuses to leave a dwelling, residence, or vehicle owned or lawfully occupied by another person, the owner or occupant is presumed to have held a reasonable fear of death or great bodily harm so as to justify the use of deadly force. The intruder is furthermore presumed to be doing so with the intent to commit an unlawful act involving force or violence.
The presumptions employed in the context or home or vehicle invasion mark yet another statutory departure from the common law. Although, prior to 2005, Florida case decisions had long recognized the "Castle Doctrine" (which provides that where one is not the aggressor and is violently assaulted in one's home, there is no obligation to retreat), the doctrine nonetheless required the owner or occupant of the home to reasonably believe that force was necessary to prevent death or serious bodily harm. Under the current statute, the reasonableness of the occupant’s belief is presumed so long as he or she acts within a “dwelling,” “residence,” or “vehicle,” as defined in Section 776.013, Florida Statutes. “Dwelling” means a building or conveyance of any kind, including any attached porch, whether the building or conveyance is temporary or permanent, mobile or immobile, which has a roof over it, including a tent, and is designed to be occupied by people lodging therein at night. “Residence” means a dwelling in which a person resides either temporarily or permanently or is visiting as an invited guest. “Vehicle” means a conveyance of any kind, whether or not motorized, which is designed to transport people or property.
Procedures: How Does Florida’s Stand Your Ground Law Work?
Florida’s Stand Your Ground law provides potential immunity from prosecution for an accused who can establish (by appropriate legal procedures) that his or her actions fell within the purview of the statute. To understand how “Stand Your Ground” immunity works, one has to understand the nature of a self-defense claim and how a such a claim is typically raised in a criminal proceeding.
Self-defense is a type of affirmative defense that operates to avoid (or cancel) the legal effect of a violent act (such as a homicide), which would ordinarily subject the accused to criminal liability. In a self-defense claim, the defendant admits the truth of the essential act (i.e. that he or she committed a homicide or other violence against a person), but justifies the act by claiming that it was necessary to save him- or herself from death or great bodily harm. In effect, the defendant says: “Yes, I killed. But I did not murder (commit an unlawful killing) because, under the facts and circumstances, my acts were justifiable.” Under common law and in most criminal cases today, the question of justifiable self-defense is a factual question for the jury to resolve at trial. The jury is the “fact-finder.” They decide whether the act was sufficiently justified so as to insulate the accused from criminal liability and punishment.
Here again, Florida’s Stand Your Ground Law makes another significant change from the common law. Under Section 776.032, Florida Statutes, a person who uses force as permitted in Section 776.012 or Section 776.013 “is immune from criminal prosecution and civil action” for the use of such force (with certain limited exceptions pertaining to law enforcement officers). Note the word “immune.” This means that, if the accused can factually establish pre-trial that his or her use of deadly force occurred under the circumstances in Section 776.012 or Section 776.013, the State of Florida is legally and procedurally barred from further prosecution in the matter. In the event that a civil action is brought against the person who used qualifying deadly force, a court must award reasonable attorney’s fees, court costs, compensation for loss of income, and all expenses incurred in the defense of the case.
The procedures for asserting prosecutorial immunity under the Stand Your Ground Law are outlined in Peterson v. State, 983 So. 2d 27, 29 (Fla. 1st DCA 2008), a Florida First District Court of Appeal decision. The Petersen decision definitively established that Section 776.032 was created by the Florida Legislature to establish a true immunity and not merely an affirmative defense. The Court stated that, when immunity under the law is properly raised by a defendant, the trial court (at a hearing) must decide the matter by confronting and weighing only factual disputes. Petersen held that a defendant may raise the question of statutory immunity pre-trial and, when such claim is raised, the trial court must determine whether the defendant has shown by a preponderance of the evidence that immunity attaches. The trial court may not deny a motion for immunity simply because factual disputes exist.
NOTE: In Gray v. State, 13 So. 2d 114 (Fla. 5th DCA 2009), the Fifth District Court of Appeal of Florida (governing Sanford, Florida, the site of the Trayvon Martin shooting) adopted the procedures outlined above in Petersen, holding that the right to immunity from criminal prosecution afforded by Section 776.032 is to be determined by the trial court after an evidentiary proceeding in which the criminal defendant has the burden of proof by a preponderance of the evidence. Id. at 114.
Thus, under the procedures outlined in Petersen, prosecutorial immunity does not attach under the Florida’s Stand Your Ground law by way of mere factual assertion. The issue is raised pre-trial through the filing of a Motion for Declaration of Immunity. To obtain such a declaration by the trial court, a hearing is held where the defendant must demonstrate by a preponderance of the evidence his or her qualifications for immunity. This essentially reverses the burden of proof traditionally at play in a criminal case. The defense presents the evidence, shows that he or she meets the statutory prerequisites, and requests that the court grant the motion and appropriate relief. If the Motion is granted, the defense then files a Motion to Dismiss the case, as there are no longer any justiciable issues for a jury to resolve.
With regard to the Trayvon Martin case, the notion that Florida’s Stand Your Ground law prohibits the prosecution of George Zimmerman is fundamentally false. Although, if prosecuted, George Zimmerman may attempt to later assert immunity, this does not prevent a prosecution from being initiated. Prior to forming Hussein & Webber, P.L., Attorney Troy J. Webber served as an Assistant Public Defender in the Eighteenth Judicial Circuit of Florida, the circuit governing Sanford, Florida. During that time, the State Attorney’s Office for the Eighteenth Judicial Circuit routinely prosecuted defendants in the face of “Stand Your Ground” Motions. In those cases, the prosecutor would file charges, and defense counsel would file a “Stand Your Ground” Motion for Declaration of Immunity and Dismissal [Click Here for an Example]. The matter was then heard at an evidentiary hearing, where the defense had to show its entitlement to immunity by a preponderance of the evidence. If successful, immunity was granted and the case dismissed. If unsuccessful, the prosecution resumed and the case resolved by way of plea or trial.
Nothing about the Trayvon Martin incident prevents this procedure from being followed. To date, the Office of the State Attorney has chosen not to initiate prosecution.
If you are accused of a violent criminal offense in Jacksonville, Florida, you may have grounds to contest the charge. Our Jacksonville criminal defense lawyer has extensive experience in “Stand Your Ground” immunity and other defenses. Contact an experienced Jacksonville criminal defense lawyer today for a free consultation. ][/quote]
_________________ Women are from Hoboken, men are from Trenton. ~ Jimmy Kimmel
Which bodes the question: What does the prosecutor know that we don't? For them to shoot for the three pointer, they either know something that seriously puts a hole in Zimmermans story, or they are postulating to the masses.
_________________ I prefer to think of them as "Fighting evil in another dimension"
Joined: Fri Sep 04, 2009 5:46 pm Posts: 900 Location: In the rain shadow
Could be they are going for the 3 pointer, but willing to accept the jury reducing it to manslaughter if he's convicted. Can't go for murder 2 if he's acquitted for manslaughter first.
It will be interesting to see how this all plays out, to say the least.
_________________ Women are from Hoboken, men are from Trenton. ~ Jimmy Kimmel
could be. I'm still thinking they must know significantly more than is circulating in the media. The level of proof for murder 2 is signficantly greater than man 1 as I understand it.
_________________ I prefer to think of them as "Fighting evil in another dimension"
Joined: Thu Sep 03, 2009 9:59 am Posts: 15740 Location: Combat Information Center
Colphax wrote:
Diamondeye:
I used the phrase "immune from prosecution" based upon an opinion piece I'd read that was discussing the stand your ground law. That same piece mentioned how the term "provoke" was ill-defined in the law itself. Unfortunately, with the news going so fast on the changing story, that opinion piece seems to have been buried pretty quickly, even though I read it only yesterday. That sucks, because I would have like to have read your reaction to it based upon your experience.
I looked into it a little more carefully. Evidently, if you use force in a way justified by the Stand Your Ground law, you are immune from prosecution, as well as civil action. However, it's a bit deceptive because that doesn't mean you won't be prosecuted since you pretty much have to be prosecuted or sued to resolve the question of whether you qualify for the immunity. In other words, it does not mean you completely get out of even going to court.
Quote:
I also wasn't very surprised at the charges coming against Zimmerman considering what I've read about the special prosecutor (she's a bit controversial in that she readily brings charges) and that the lead investigator wanted to charge Zimmerman but was overruled by the first DA.
I'm still very suspicious of the decision to dispense with a grand jury. I would like to know what the reason was.
_________________ "Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."
Joined: Thu Sep 03, 2009 9:59 am Posts: 15740 Location: Combat Information Center
Quote:
I also found an article on stand your ground on a Florida criminal defense attorney's website that seems to imply to me that if the stand your ground law applied to Trayvon Martin defending himself against Zimmerman, then there is no way to apply assault and battery charges on Martin. Of course, that's a big "if" that likely would need to be decided by either a judge or a jury.
The article doesn't imply that at all. It specifically says the contrary; that if you are charged, you can assert self defense under stand your ground, and get a hearing on it. It doesn't stop you from being charged in the first place.
The other problem is that while if Zimmerman were the initial aggressor Martin could use stand your ground to assert self defense, once he had Zimmerman on the ground and started beating him he would have gone beyond self-defense and outside the scope of stand your ground. Furthermore, if Martin were still alive to be charged and there were sufficient evidence to show that he did that, you would charge him with something more serious than assault and battery.
It seems like you have this idea that since Martin was unarmed, the worst he could have done was assault and battery. A lot of people seem to think this and don't understand the level of danger involved in being on your back with someone swinging at your face. This is a very dangerous position to be in, and if you really don't buy it.. try letting someone put you in that position.
_________________ "Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."
Joined: Fri Sep 04, 2009 5:46 pm Posts: 900 Location: In the rain shadow
I just looked up "states with stand your ground laws" and found Florida's law on Wikipedia:
Spoiler:
[quoteFlorida2011 Florida Statutes CHAPTER 776 JUSTIFIABLE USE OF FORCE[20]
776.012 Use of force in defense of person.—A person is justified in using force, except deadly force, against another when and to the extent that the person reasonably believes that such conduct is necessary to defend himself or herself or another against the other’s imminent use of unlawful force. However, a person is justified in the use of deadly force and does not have a duty to retreat if:
(1) He or she reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the imminent commission of a forcible felony; or (2) Under those circumstances permitted pursuant to s. 776.013. 776.013 Home protection; use of deadly force; presumption of fear of death or great bodily harm.—
(1) A person is presumed to have held a reasonable fear of imminent peril of death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another when using defensive force that is intended or likely to cause death or great bodily harm to another if:
(a) The person against whom the defensive force was used was in the process of unlawfully and forcefully entering, or had unlawfully and forcibly entered, a dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle, or if that person had removed or was attempting to remove another against that person’s will from the dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle; and (b) The person who uses defensive force knew or had reason to believe that an unlawful and forcible entry or unlawful and forcible act was occurring or had occurred. (2) The presumption set forth in subsection (1) does not apply if:
(a) The person against whom the defensive force is used has the right to be in or is a lawful resident of the dwelling, residence, or vehicle, such as an owner, lessee, or titleholder, and there is not an injunction for protection from domestic violence or a written pretrial supervision order of no contact against that person; or (b) The person or persons sought to be removed is a child or grandchild, or is otherwise in the lawful custody or under the lawful guardianship of, the person against whom the defensive force is used; or (c) The person who uses defensive force is engaged in an unlawful activity or is using the dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle to further an unlawful activity; or (d) The person against whom the defensive force is used is a law enforcement officer, as defined in s. 943.10(14), who enters or attempts to enter a dwelling, residence, or vehicle in the performance of his or her official duties and the officer identified himself or herself in accordance with any applicable law or the person using force knew or reasonably should have known that the person entering or attempting to enter was a law enforcement officer. (3) A person who is not engaged in an unlawful activity and who is attacked in any other place where he or she has a right to be has no duty to retreat and has the right to stand his or her ground and meet force with force, including deadly force if he or she reasonably believes it is necessary to do so to prevent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the commission of a forcible felony.
(4) A person who unlawfully and by force enters or attempts to enter a person’s dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle is presumed to be doing so with the intent to commit an unlawful act involving force or violence.
(5) As used in this section, the term:
(a) “Dwelling” means a building or conveyance of any kind, including any attached porch, whether the building or conveyance is temporary or permanent, mobile or immobile, which has a roof over it, including a tent, and is designed to be occupied by people lodging therein at night. (b) “Residence” means a dwelling in which a person resides either temporarily or permanently or is visiting as an invited guest. (c) “Vehicle” means a conveyance of any kind, whether or not motorized, which is designed to transport people or property. 776.032 Immunity from criminal prosecution and civil action for justifiable use of force.—
(1) A person who uses force as permitted in s. 776.012, s. 776.013, or s. 776.031 is justified in using such force and is immune from criminal prosecution and civil action for the use of such force, unless the person against whom force was used is a law enforcement officer, as defined in s. 943.10(14), who was acting in the performance of his or her official duties and the officer identified himself or herself in accordance with any applicable law or the person using force knew or reasonably should have known that the person was a law enforcement officer. As used in this subsection, the term “criminal prosecution” includes arresting, detaining in custody, and charging or prosecuting the defendant.
(2) A law enforcement agency may use standard procedures for investigating the use of force as described in subsection (1), but the agency may not arrest the person for using force unless it determines that there is probable cause that the force that was used was unlawful.
(3) The court shall award reasonable attorney’s fees, court costs, compensation for loss of income, and all expenses incurred by the defendant in defense of any civil action brought by a plaintiff if the court finds that the defendant is immune from prosecution as provided in subsection (1).
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. ][/quote]
Based upon that, it looks like both of us may be right, Diamondeye, but with conditions. The key point is if Martin knew that Zimmerman was armed. This could be vitally important, since Zimmerman's family has gone on record as saying that Martin was trying to disarm Zimmerman based upon what they say Zimmerman told them. If Martin knew Zimmerman was armed, he could conceivably apply the stand your ground immunity whether or not he initiated the physical altercation in the first place according to 776.012 and/or 776.014 (if he had survived and Zimmerman had died or been seriously injured). Conversely, if the weapon was not known to be present by Martin, Zimmerman could conceivably attempt to use stand your ground whether or not he started the physical altercation.
776.032 spells out the immunity involved with the law. There's a nice conundrum there in that the law grants immunity from arreset, detainment, and prosecution...but determining if that immunity actually applies requires either a judge's or a jury's decision after the accused files a motion for it. I think that its quite possible that the state was trying to dot all of its i's and cross all of it's t's and had to let Zimmerman go that night while still trying to investigate . When the media got a whiff of the story is when things got out of hand.
_________________ Women are from Hoboken, men are from Trenton. ~ Jimmy Kimmel
Interesting how it went from "released because of enough evidence to back up his self-defense claim" to "Charged with 2nd degree murder"
Unless the prosecutor(s) have access to more evidence that hasn't been released.
We'll have to wait and watch the continued media circus.
I wonder if the Al Sharpton led masses will now disperse. Is the arrest and charges considered justice? Or is only a guilty verdict going to be enough for them?
_________________ This must be Thursday. I could never get the hang of Thursdays.
This case will be a mess. My only hope is that there is some conclusive evidence one way or another and I doubt there will be.
From everything I've read and heard, much of which has reversed 180 degrees, it seems like this was just something that got out of control and didnt need to happen.
Zimmerman didnt need to get out of his car and chase Martin. They didnt need to fight and Martin didnt need to die.
It's sad this kid lost his life, Zimmermans life is ruined guilty or not and the people exploiting the case are of course making things worse.
_________________ “Strong people are harder to kill than weak people, and more useful in general”. - Mark Rippetoe
I predict there will be rioting at least somewhere in the country if he doesn't get life.
_________________ "Aaaah! Emotions are weird!" - Amdee "... Mirrorshades prevent the forces of normalcy from realizing that one is crazed and possibly dangerous. They are the symbol of the sun-staring visionary, the biker, the rocker, the policeman, and similar outlaws." - Bruce Sterling, preface to Mirrorshades
I predict there will be rioting at least somewhere in the country if he doesn't get life.
I predict the sun will rise in the east...what we are going with bold predictions here?
_________________ "Life isn't divided into genres. It's a horrifying, romantic, tragic, comical, science-fiction cowboy detective novel. You know, with a bit of pornography if you're lucky." — Alan Moore
I wonder what would make the situation worse actually, if he is never charged, or charged, tried and found not guilty?
_________________ "Life isn't divided into genres. It's a horrifying, romantic, tragic, comical, science-fiction cowboy detective novel. You know, with a bit of pornography if you're lucky." — Alan Moore
Joined: Thu Sep 03, 2009 9:59 am Posts: 15740 Location: Combat Information Center
Colphax wrote:
I just looked up "states with stand your ground laws" and found Florida's law on Wikipedia:
Based upon that, it looks like both of us may be right, Diamondeye, but with conditions. The key point is if Martin knew that Zimmerman was armed. This could be vitally important, since Zimmerman's family has gone on record as saying that Martin was trying to disarm Zimmerman based upon what they say Zimmerman told them. If Martin knew Zimmerman was armed, he could conceivably apply the stand your ground immunity whether or not he initiated the physical altercation in the first place according to 776.012 and/or 776.014 (if he had survived and Zimmerman had died or been seriously injured). Conversely, if the weapon was not known to be present by Martin, Zimmerman could conceivably attempt to use stand your ground whether or not he started the physical altercation.
Yes, I already covered all this, and cited part of the text from Wikipedia. It depends on if Martin knew Zimmerman was armed, and at exactly what point he became aware of that, and also on what Zimmerman was doing with the weapon.
See, the thing is that Zimmerman had a right to be armed. Him merely being armed doesn't matter unless he said or did something indicating he was actually going to employ the weapon; i.e. tell Martin he has a gun, point it at him, wave it around, whatever. Merely having it doesn't suddenly allow Martin to "defend himself"; the fact that someone else (even someone else you are arguing or having a confrontation with) has a gun does not automatically allow you attack them with deadly force.
As for "what Martin's family claims Zimmerman told them" I'm suspicious of a claim that Zimmerman talked to the family directly at all unless there's something out there where he confirms that he did. There is an exception to the hearsay rule for the words of the defendant, but I don't know if that allows introduction of this kind of testimony.
Quote:
776.032 spells out the immunity involved with the law. There's a nice conundrum there in that the law grants immunity from arreset, detainment, and prosecution...but determining if that immunity actually applies requires either a judge's or a jury's decision after the accused files a motion for it. I think that its quite possible that the state was trying to dot all of its i's and cross all of it's t's and had to let Zimmerman go that night while still trying to investigate . When the media got a whiff of the story is when things got out of hand.
Yes, that's what I just said. The thing is that it doesn't really provide any immunity from arrest. It appears to, but all it really does is state the obvious; namely that the police agency may not arrest without probable cause to believe the force used was unlawful.
Well, duh. Of course. You always have to have probable cause to arrest, stand your ground law or not.
_________________ "Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."
I think the prosecution is aiming high hoping for a plea to a lesser charge. Murder 2 requires a malicious intent, which I also see the test phrases being tossed out into the media that Zimmerman "profiled" Martin. It puts the defense in a difficult position of establishing what Martin was doing was suspicious because.of his actions, not his race. Fortunately the 911 call bears that out IMO.
Florida is a very transparent state so information on what the prosecution has should be available in a reasonably short time after the arraignment hearing.
_________________ A man who has nothing for which he is willing to fight, nothing which is more important than his own personal safety, is a miserable creature and has no chance of being free unless made and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself. ~ John Stuart Mill
I am mad at the media for making me care about this.
I almost got into an argument last night with a woman I didn't know and my shoulder therapist about this case.
They have convicted Zimmerman already. Throwing out the "facts" as they know them as gospel. I tried making a case for letting the legal system sort it out and not trusting what you read on the internet or hear reported on the 6:00 news as fact.
They already have decided that Trayvon was an innocent little angel with a completely clear background who didn't deserve what happened to him. Zimmerman chased him down, attacked and shot him.
Couldn't convince them that all of that is purely speculation and the facts of the case are not quite known. They were certain their information was correct and there would be no making up of their minds.
I don't want to care about this case anymore. It has spun into something that it never should have been and now it is the new Cause célèbre with shouts of police corruption, racial profiling, etc...
All too familiar...
_________________ This must be Thursday. I could never get the hang of Thursdays.
For all my cracker bretheren, leave the brothers alone no matter what. You're just another cracker who might shoot them.
_________________ "It is true that democracy undermines freedom when voters believe they can live off of others' productivity, when they modify the commandment: 'Thou shalt not steal, except by majority vote.' The politics of plunder is no doubt destructive of both morality and the division of labor."
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 6 guests
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot post attachments in this forum
Login
Register
FAQ
Search
But i did find 
