Florida vs. Zimmerman - Q.E.D????????

[joecct]

Re: Florida vs. Zimmerman - Q.E.D????????

...but let's just address the facts here.

Why?

 

[alfablue]

Re: Florida vs. Zimmerman - Q.E.D????????

The references to "stand your ground" have come mainly from media types, who clearly disapprove of the law. I doubt it will be a major line of Zimmerman's defense. However, you are permitted to defend yourself against a violent assault, which is what he says happened.

Again, if you are allowed to defend yourself, why isn't TM given that benefit of the doubt? He could have been "standing his ground" as well- but all we are talking about is what Zim did.

That's where the whole point of the law seems confused- in a situation like this, both sides can claim "stand your ground" had they won. And technically, both could have been given the immunity under the law. So it seems as if the law would allow a fight that concludes in a death. That just seems odd.

 

[alfablue]

Re: Florida vs. Zimmerman - Q.E.D????????

Also, I think a little reality ought to be brought to the discourse about Stand Your Ground laws.

In Florida, the bill passed the Senate 39-0 and the House 94-20. Jennifer Granholm, who now sees fit to rail against such laws on her show on Current TV, evidently had no such qualms when she allowed such a bill to become law in Michigan in 2005.

Lord knows, strong bipartisan support for a bill does not make it good policy, any more than narrow support makes it bad, but let's just address the facts here.

It all depends on how the law is written. If you are at home trying to keep out an attacker, that's one thing. But if the law isn't very specific, and allows one to claim the law if you use deadly force in an ordinary fight, that's totally different. And it's an important debate.

 

[WeWantMore]

Re: Florida vs. Zimmerman - Q.E.D????????

Again, if you are allowed to defend yourself, why isn't TM given that benefit of the doubt? He could have been "standing his ground" as well- but all we are talking about is what Zim did.

That's where the whole point of the law seems confused- in a situation like this, both sides can claim "stand your ground" had they won. And technically, both could have been given the immunity under the law. So it seems as if the law would allow a fight that concludes in a death. That just seems odd.

First off, there is no indication that Zimmerman will be making a claim of Stand Your Ground. If his story is true (which I personally don't believe), it would seem he might be protected by traditional self-defense laws, without even bringing Stand Your Ground into play.

Consider this:

Even under the old retreat duty, prosecutors needed to show your route of escape was truly safe; the rule did not require you to turn your back on someone who might well catch up and do you harm. By many accounts, Trayvon had the upper hand in the scuffle between the two before the gunshot (according to his attorney, Zimmerman had a broken nose).

If Zimmerman claimed he had no safe way to disengage from the beating, prosecutors might have had trouble establishing the "safe line of retreat" required under the old law.

There's a pattern here. If Sanford police lacked probable cause to charge Zimmerman under the post-'05 law, they most likely also lacked probable cause under the older law. (Whether they should have worked harder to develop evidence of probable cause is a separate question.)

As UCLA law professor Eugene Volokh argues — and contrary to many press accounts — "most American states rejected the duty to retreat even before the recent flurry of new 'stand your ground' laws." At this point, a large majority of U.S. states join Florida in rejecting the duty, which still prevails in England and elsewhere.

For the record, here's what the Florida law actually says:

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.

 

[WeWantMore]

Re: Florida vs. Zimmerman - Q.E.D????????

But if the law isn't very specific, and allows one to claim the law if you use deadly force in an ordinary fight, that's totally different. And it's an important debate.

You bet, it's an important debate. But once again, the bolded is decidedly not what SYG laws allow you to. To quote the FL law again

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...

I don't think that covers "an ordinary fight".

 

[amherstblackbear]

Re: Florida vs. Zimmerman - Q.E.D????????

The main problem, as I wrote in the other thread, is that stand your ground only applies to people of age. We need to lower the age requirement for lawfully carrying firearms.

If Martin had been armed, sure, he could have stood his ground, capped that crazy basterd, and saved the country a lot of heartache.

/nra

 

[joecct]

Re: Florida vs. Zimmerman - Q.E.D????????

The main problem, as I wrote in the other thread, is that stand your ground only applies to people of age. We need to lower the age requirement for lawfully carrying firearms.

If Martin had been armed, sure, he could have stood his ground, capped that crazy basterd, and saved the country a lot of heartache.

/nra

A black man killing a white man in Florida? Chair.

 

[Old Pio]

Re: Florida vs. Zimmerman - Q.E.D????????

Zimmerman's lawyer says he'd going to plead not guilty under the Stand Your Ground law. Shows what I know.

 

[Twitch Boy]

Re: Florida vs. Zimmerman - Q.E.D????????

Zimmerman's lawyer says he'd going to plead not guilty under the Stand Your Ground law. Shows what I know.

From what I read, the SYG defense is a pre-trial motion to dismiss. If the judge grants it, there's no more trial, it's all over right there. If not, they proceed to a trial where he could make a conventional self-defense argument.

 

[WeWantMore]

Zimmerman's lawyer says he'd going to plead not guilty under the Stand Your Ground law. Shows what I know.

Yep, that's me shown as well.

Still don't believe he'll be protected by the law though.

 

[Old Pio]

Re: Florida vs. Zimmerman - Q.E.D????????

From what I read, the SYG defense is a pre-trial motion to dismiss. If the judge grants it, there's no more trial, it's all over right there. If not, they proceed to a trial where he could make a conventional self-defense argument.

Thanks for the clarification. Then there's the little matter of bail. Oy.

 

[huskyfan]

Re: Florida vs. Zimmerman - Q.E.D????????

saw an interview with Z new lawyer tonight. one thing he mentioned and it surprised me - he's a small guy - 5'8" and slender and looks much younger than what the mugshots showed.

 

[FreshFish]

Re: Florida vs. Zimmerman - Q.E.D????????

The cynic in me is out again.

You charge him with Murder2 to get the community off your back. Then you muck up the prosecution just enough that he walks. You did your job, the jury just did not believe the facts. Whatever you do, never give the jury the option to convict on a lesser charge.

I think I read that the jury automatically has the option to convict on a lesser charge, under FL law, if I understood the article correctly.

Hey, if jury nullification worked for OJ, maybe it can work for GZ too.

 

[Old Pio]

Re: Florida vs. Zimmerman - Q.E.D????????

FWIW: Dershowitz is crying b*ll sh*t. He says the charging document doesn't even establish probable cause for an arrest and suggests there's a chance a judge will throw the case out before it comes to trial. He calls the prosecutor's TV appearance a "campaign speech," and thinks she may be angling for a judgeship somewhere. He calls the affidavit "irresponsible and unethical."

http://www.mediaite.com/tv/harvard-...arrest-affidavit-irresponsible-and-unethical/

 

[5mn_Major]

Re: Florida vs. Zimmerman - Q.E.D????????

The reason this is a case with national pub is that its very political on several levels. This in an election year.

It seems the prosecutors are planning on making the case that it is not applicable under stand your ground due to probably pursuit by Martin.

Prosecutors interviewed a friend of Martin's who was talking to him by phone just before the shooting. The affidavit says Martin told the friend he was being followed and was scared. Martin tried to run home, the affidavit says, but was followed by Zimmerman. "Zimmerman got out of his vehicle and followed Martin," the affidavit said. It also notes that "Zimmerman disregarded the police dispatcher" who told him to stop pursuing, and he "continued to follow Martin, who was trying to return to his home."

 

[unofan]

Re: Florida vs. Zimmerman - Q.E.D????????

The references to "stand your ground" have come mainly from media types, who clearly disapprove of the law. I doubt it will be a major line of Zimmerman's defense. However, you are permitted to defend yourself against a violent assault, which is what he says happened.

Right, but Treyvon could argue the same thing. Except he's dead, so we only have Zimmerman's word. Sounds like an incentive to kill.

And yes, stand your ground laws are bad policy - especially one written the way florida's is. The castle doctrine is fine, but if you're in public, you should have a duty to retreat before using deadly force.

 

[alfablue]

Re: Florida vs. Zimmerman - Q.E.D????????

You bet, it's an important debate. But once again, the bolded is decidedly not what SYG laws allow you to. To quote the FL law again


I don't think that covers "an ordinary fight".

How do you decide whether an ordinary fight may harm you? If the opponent pulls a knife, you can pull a gun? What if you think that the person is a good fighter? The law even says "great bodily harm"- what does that mean? Broken wrist? Cut head? That part of the law isn't specific at all.

The other guy could have picked up a piece of glass that he just stepped in, and since you *could* get great bodily harm from that, the law then lets you shoot him?

And in this case, it's pretty clear that Zim was going to cause at least great bodily harm- so TM could be standing his ground. He was being persued, and had to do something to protect himself. But since Zim had better weapons, now he gets to claim that, since he won.

Basically, the law needs a LOT better definition, I suspect.

 

[Patman]

Re: Florida vs. Zimmerman - Q.E.D????????

The reason this is a case with national pub is that its very political on several levels. This in an election year.

It seems the prosecutors are planning on making the case that it is not applicable under stand your ground due to probably pursuit by Martin.

Prosecutors interviewed a friend of Martin's who was talking to him by phone just before the shooting. The affidavit says Martin told the friend he was being followed and was scared. Martin tried to run home, the affidavit says, but was followed by Zimmerman. "Zimmerman got out of his vehicle and followed Martin," the affidavit said. It also notes that "Zimmerman disregarded the police dispatcher" who told him to stop pursuing, and he "continued to follow Martin, who was trying to return to his home."

It was made political.

If people want to convict Zimmerman for being a moron... I can see that and there's probably some degree of truth in it. I think people are going at it from the paradigm of "if he hadn't...." therefore he created the mess that lead to the death. The real question is, does that establish some form of culpability. Zimmerman got type-cast quickly into a quite evil white racist archetype. Zimmerman may not be the brightest bulb and may be quick to act that has been my problem with this. Construction of the archetype around this situation and the inherent "truth" assumed in that archetype. That being said, all accounts show that Martin wasn't exactly an honor human.

That being said, the stuff that people have done or tried to have done to Zimmerman is ridiculous and based on an unproven assumption of plain racial bias that went unchecked by EVERYBODY. Meanwhile, there are plenty of race motivated black on white crime in modern time which do not result in the same reaction from whites. Heck, there was a racially motivated beating up in Baltimore recently. Let's even note that Zimmerman is as white as the CinC which again notes another manipulation in this awful saga. The fact this thing is national news is disgusting... and worse, its a disgusting political ploy by those in power. People should take note that this was used to construct a political opportunity by the president and his apparatus. What does this say about them?

Nobody is a saint in this... but the reactions and constructions have been downright monstrous. Zimmerman may well be guilty of something... but I think people should be disgusted by the outright manipulations used by the press... and should really ask why they would go to such lengths.


edit: my opinion... in a world unbounded by the exactness of legal standards... I'd wager that Zimmerman should spend some time (1-3 years) in lock up for being an idiot... but that's without the full weight of evidence and testimony. I find this notion that he was a racist looking to bag a black punk to be incredibly unlikely. The rest of the zoo that this has become... people should be ashamed... but you know, there's a president to re-elect.

 

[Patman]

Re: Florida vs. Zimmerman - Q.E.D????????

I'm not relying on anything. It's not up to me to decide his guilt or innocence. And I never said the 911 operator's comment was a definitive injunction against following him. But it takes a certain level of willful obtuseness to deny that it changes the legal context.

Mainly I'm just having fun with folks whose convictions are so unshakable that they find it easier to construct some sort of conspiracy - with no discernible evidence - than to accept that things may, in fact, appear to be what they seem.

$.02

Says the guy who is making a white-hispanic male into a "redneck cracker"... there wouldn't be evidence of a conspiracy if not for the out and out manipulations of the national press.

 

[WeWantMore]

Re: Florida vs. Zimmerman - Q.E.D????????

How do you decide whether an ordinary fight may harm you? If the opponent pulls a knife, you can pull a gun? What if you think that the person is a good fighter? The law even says "great bodily harm"- what does that mean? Broken wrist? Cut head? That part of the law isn't specific at all.

The other guy could have picked up a piece of glass that he just stepped in, and since you *could* get great bodily harm from that, the law then lets you shoot him?

Again though, you seem to be confused about the difference between stand your ground laws and "regular" self-defense laws.

For instance, in Wisconsin - a non stand your ground state- the law says:

A person is privileged to threaten or intentionally use force against another for the purpose of preventing or terminating what the person reasonably believes to be an unlawful interference with his or her person by such other person. The actor may intentionally use only such force or threat thereof as the actor reasonably believes is necessary to prevent or terminate the interference. The actor may not intentionally use force which is intended or likely to cause death or great bodily harm unless the actor reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself.

The imminent death or great bodily harm language is hardly limited to stand your ground laws.