USCHO Fan Forum
This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
-
The USCHO Fan Forum has migrated to a new plaform, xenForo. Most of the function of the forum should work in familiar ways. Please note that you can switch between light and dark modes by clicking on the gear icon in the upper right of the main menu bar. We are hoping that this new platform will prove to be faster and more reliable. Please feel free to explore its features.
Florida vs. Zimmerman - Q.E.D????????
- Thread starter joecct
- Start date
Re: Florida vs. Zimmerman - Q.E.D????????
Whether someone is a known killer has little to do with whether they are guilty of some degree of murder, let alone any crime at all. There are cases, even apart from Stand Your Ground laws, where a person kills someone else and is within the law to do so. And of course there are cases where someone kills someone else and does violate various laws in doing so. That's why we have trials and a court system, as imperfect as they are.
Re: Florida vs. Zimmerman - Q.E.D????????
Maybe I can sniff out our difference.
The law allows for known killers to not even be tried. Is that good justice?
If the legislature passes a law making murder legal...will justice be served if there's no prosecution of such cases?
Maybe I can sniff out our difference.
The law allows for known killers to not even be tried. Is that good justice?
If the legislature passes a law making murder legal...will justice be served if there's no prosecution of such cases?
Re: Florida vs. Zimmerman - Q.E.D????????
They won't be tried if the evidence available indicates they didn't commit any crime or if the evidence is too weak to prosecute.
Re: Florida vs. Zimmerman - Q.E.D????????
OK...nearing an answer.
Someone in a state with SYG chases a victim for a block and is proven to have killed them and isn't tried. You're saying that society has received good justice.
Now we're getting somewhere. Yes we disagree.
OK...nearing an answer.
Someone in a state with SYG chases a victim for a block and is proven to have killed them and isn't tried. You're saying that society has received good justice.
Now we're getting somewhere. Yes we disagree.
ScoobyDoo
NPC
Re: Florida vs. Zimmerman - Q.E.D????????
Why did he chase him? That's the part I've never understood.
Why did he chase him? That's the part I've never understood.
Re: Florida vs. Zimmerman - Q.E.D????????
The ladies in the chorale spend far more time watching Fox than I do. But I digress. As I've said, based on what you've posted, this case doesn't strike me as a self-defense matter under any circumstances. But I'm no lawyer and certainly not up to speed on SYG. Like you, the first time I'd ever heard of it was in the Zimmerman case. Unlike you, I haven't made it my life's work to get the law repealed. Because any law "backed by the NRA" is evil, don't cha know?
Sometimes judges and juries come to decisions that pass all understanding. Like, say, a jury in LA that acquitted a former football player of a double homicide, even though he had the blood of the victims on his clothes and in his car. Go figure.
Regardless of the details of Garcia's case, your central premise remains unproven: that because of SYG, many Floridians have gotten away with murder because of it. That all these felons have to do is wave the magic wand of SYG and hesto presto, they're free as a bird. A tiny handful of cases, where the law may have been misapplied, does not prove that assertion. Particularly in a very large state with a lot of criminals. And referencing a few cases over and over and over again (evidently hoping to convince us) isn't working. It's rather like the American tourist who figures IF I JUST TALK LOUD ENOUGH, THESE FOREIGNERS WILL UNDERSTAND ME.
Hmm...I'm the only one?
I'm glad you asked...from the most accurate outlet in major media today:
Police: 'Stand ground' man shot dead in Miami
Fox News
...Last January, Garcia was in his apartment in Miami's Little Havana district when he saw Pedro Roteta stealing a stereo from his truck. Garcia grabbed a kitchen knife and chased after Roteta for about a block. When Garcia caught up to him, surveillance cameras caught Roteta swinging a bag containing the stereos at him. Authorities said Garcia fatally stabbed Roteta in the chest, picked up the bag of stereos and then went home and went to sleep. He then hid the knife and sold two of the stereos.
Arrested and charged with second-degree murder, Garcia claimed his actions were taken in self-defense as defined by Florida's "stand your ground" law. That law came to national prominence after neighborhood watch volunteer George Zimmerman invoked it in the shooting death of unarmed teenager Trayvon Martin.
The 2005 law broadly eliminates a person's duty to retreat under threat of death or serious injury, as long as the person isn't committing a crime and is in a place where he or she has a right to be.
In March, a circuit judge ruled that Garcia acted within the law. The judge said Garcia could have been killed or seriously injured if Roteta had hit him in the head with the bag of stereos...
The ladies in the chorale spend far more time watching Fox than I do. But I digress. As I've said, based on what you've posted, this case doesn't strike me as a self-defense matter under any circumstances. But I'm no lawyer and certainly not up to speed on SYG. Like you, the first time I'd ever heard of it was in the Zimmerman case. Unlike you, I haven't made it my life's work to get the law repealed. Because any law "backed by the NRA" is evil, don't cha know?
Sometimes judges and juries come to decisions that pass all understanding. Like, say, a jury in LA that acquitted a former football player of a double homicide, even though he had the blood of the victims on his clothes and in his car. Go figure.
Regardless of the details of Garcia's case, your central premise remains unproven: that because of SYG, many Floridians have gotten away with murder because of it. That all these felons have to do is wave the magic wand of SYG and hesto presto, they're free as a bird. A tiny handful of cases, where the law may have been misapplied, does not prove that assertion. Particularly in a very large state with a lot of criminals. And referencing a few cases over and over and over again (evidently hoping to convince us) isn't working. It's rather like the American tourist who figures IF I JUST TALK LOUD ENOUGH, THESE FOREIGNERS WILL UNDERSTAND ME.
Re: Florida vs. Zimmerman - Q.E.D????????
The first guy had taken a couple of car stereos. He couldn't really take the high ground saying he was killing to prevent a crime...because he turned around and tried to sell the stolen radios himself.
The first guy had taken a couple of car stereos. He couldn't really take the high ground saying he was killing to prevent a crime...because he turned around and tried to sell the stolen radios himself.
Re: Florida vs. Zimmerman - Q.E.D????????
I've watched enough episodes of "Law and Order" to know that previous convictions generally aren't admissable at trial. The prosecution has to prove its case, period. Criminal history can affect the decision to prosecute and the punishment after conviction. But not the guilt or innocence of the accused. So the phrase "known killers" is irrelevant to the matter at hand. "Known killers" and all other suspects, for that matter, are brought to trial when no plea deal can be worked out and when the DA thinks he's got a winnable case.
I've watched enough episodes of "Law and Order" to know that previous convictions generally aren't admissable at trial. The prosecution has to prove its case, period. Criminal history can affect the decision to prosecute and the punishment after conviction. But not the guilt or innocence of the accused. So the phrase "known killers" is irrelevant to the matter at hand. "Known killers" and all other suspects, for that matter, are brought to trial when no plea deal can be worked out and when the DA thinks he's got a winnable case.
Re: Florida vs. Zimmerman - Q.E.D????????
Some people have their political issues. This is one of mine.
Its just a major law that results in bad justice which can result greater temptation to commit relevent crimes. In this case, it involves killing...which based on my beliefs (Christianity) is paramount.
Some people have their political issues. This is one of mine.
Its just a major law that results in bad justice which can result greater temptation to commit relevent crimes. In this case, it involves killing...which based on my beliefs (Christianity) is paramount.
Re: Florida vs. Zimmerman - Q.E.D????????
Pish tush. If a white guy shoots a black kid (with a bag of "Skillets") that's all we need to know. Get the rope.
Pish tush. If a white guy shoots a black kid (with a bag of "Skillets") that's all we need to know. Get the rope.
Re: Florida vs. Zimmerman - Q.E.D????????
Problem is in these cases there is plenty of evidence to prosecute based on tying the killings back to the suspect. It is strictly SYG in these cases that stops any form of prosecution.
Problem is in these cases there is plenty of evidence to prosecute based on tying the killings back to the suspect. It is strictly SYG in these cases that stops any form of prosecution.
Re: Florida vs. Zimmerman - Q.E.D????????
Even if I accept your argument (which I don't) are you suggesting these annecdotal cases in Florida are the only examples of miscarriages of justice in the whole country? I'd imagine we do a pretty good job of trying and convicting bad guys, statistically. But when it comes to individual cases, then in a country as large as ours, there are going to be hundreds, perhaps thousands of instances where something goes wrong.
BTW, you haven't proven a single word of that post, except the part about your personal beliefs. What's a "major" law? Conversely, what's a "minor" law? Please defne "bad justice." And please provide something other than annecdotes to support your repeated assertion that SYG can "result (in) greater temptation to commit
relevant crimes." This is the heart of your argument. And you haven't come within a time zone of proving it.
Even if I accept your argument (which I don't) are you suggesting these annecdotal cases in Florida are the only examples of miscarriages of justice in the whole country? I'd imagine we do a pretty good job of trying and convicting bad guys, statistically. But when it comes to individual cases, then in a country as large as ours, there are going to be hundreds, perhaps thousands of instances where something goes wrong.
BTW, you haven't proven a single word of that post, except the part about your personal beliefs. What's a "major" law? Conversely, what's a "minor" law? Please defne "bad justice." And please provide something other than annecdotes to support your repeated assertion that SYG can "result (in) greater temptation to commit
relevant crimes." This is the heart of your argument. And you haven't come within a time zone of proving it.
Re: Florida vs. Zimmerman - Q.E.D????????
A few annecdotes do not prove that broad conclusion. You and I really have no idea at all what went into the various decisions in the few cases you've offered. "Plenty of evidence to prosecute" is a meaningless phrase. DA's generally are not in the habit of taking losing cases into court to prove a point. They take the cases to trial they're convinced they can win. Despite your persistence and apparant sincerity, two or three apparant miscarriages of justice do not "prove" that there's a problem. If there is, the Florida legislature can tweak the law.
I'll say again, from what I know of this law, it's not really necessary, because you're always allowed to defend yourself and others from imminent bodily harm with lethal force. This law strikes me as red meat for yahoos. Even if I'm right, you're still miles away from establishing credibly that SYG has resulted in a blood bath.
A few annecdotes do not prove that broad conclusion. You and I really have no idea at all what went into the various decisions in the few cases you've offered. "Plenty of evidence to prosecute" is a meaningless phrase. DA's generally are not in the habit of taking losing cases into court to prove a point. They take the cases to trial they're convinced they can win. Despite your persistence and apparant sincerity, two or three apparant miscarriages of justice do not "prove" that there's a problem. If there is, the Florida legislature can tweak the law.
I'll say again, from what I know of this law, it's not really necessary, because you're always allowed to defend yourself and others from imminent bodily harm with lethal force. This law strikes me as red meat for yahoos. Even if I'm right, you're still miles away from establishing credibly that SYG has resulted in a blood bath.
Re: Florida vs. Zimmerman - Q.E.D????????
Up until recently, I would say that would be true. But the Feds seem to have forgotten than axiom.
Re: Florida vs. Zimmerman - Q.E.D????????
DA's generally are elected. As we've just learned, most of the prosecutors in the Obama Justice Department qualified for the job by making donations to his campaign. One of the dudes assigned to "investigate" the leaks from the White House evidently made contributions to Obama back when he was running for the legislature in Illinois. I'm confident he can put that aside and get to the truth of this matter. Aren't you? Anyway, the vast majority of criminal prosecutions are brought by locals.
DA's generally are elected. As we've just learned, most of the prosecutors in the Obama Justice Department qualified for the job by making donations to his campaign. One of the dudes assigned to "investigate" the leaks from the White House evidently made contributions to Obama back when he was running for the legislature in Illinois. I'm confident he can put that aside and get to the truth of this matter. Aren't you? Anyway, the vast majority of criminal prosecutions are brought by locals.
Last edited:
Re: Florida vs. Zimmerman - Q.E.D????????
My posts are all my point of view and there are many. Read those first. I have shown cases of injustice already including times where prosecution of potential murders aren't even allowed to proceed. I gave you Garcia. You asked clarifying questions. I answered. You walked away.
Youre a big boy. You know how to have a two way discussion. You have no stated position on the matter. You have not factually shown why I'm wrong. You say that you don't accept my arguments...but have no rationale, examples, hard evidence or statistics of your own. Youre only point is on scalability to the national stage which is irrelevant as bad justice on a limited scale doesn't mean its good justice. Bad justice is bad justice...and you have nothing to say about my examples of bad justice. You haven't explained why SYG is good justice. You haven't shown why a killer with enough evidence to bring into the justice system historically isn't even given a chance...is good justice.
Your primary approach to discussion is to ask question after question that I answer and once answered, you walk away and just ask more. Not playing til you have something to say with substance or about your own pov.
I have made my point and nowhere have you proven me wrong.
My posts are all my point of view and there are many. Read those first. I have shown cases of injustice already including times where prosecution of potential murders aren't even allowed to proceed. I gave you Garcia. You asked clarifying questions. I answered. You walked away.
Youre a big boy. You know how to have a two way discussion. You have no stated position on the matter. You have not factually shown why I'm wrong. You say that you don't accept my arguments...but have no rationale, examples, hard evidence or statistics of your own. Youre only point is on scalability to the national stage which is irrelevant as bad justice on a limited scale doesn't mean its good justice. Bad justice is bad justice...and you have nothing to say about my examples of bad justice. You haven't explained why SYG is good justice. You haven't shown why a killer with enough evidence to bring into the justice system historically isn't even given a chance...is good justice.
Your primary approach to discussion is to ask question after question that I answer and once answered, you walk away and just ask more. Not playing til you have something to say with substance or about your own pov.
I have made my point and nowhere have you proven me wrong.
Re: Florida vs. Zimmerman - Q.E.D????????
It's not up to me to prove you wrong. It's up to you to prove you're right. Which, notwithstanding your enthusiasm and sincerity, you haven't done. You are claiming certain inevitable results from SYG and have offered only your opinion and a tiny handful of annecdotes to prove your point. That is insufficient, if only because your sample size is too small. Way too small.
The issue is not whether SYG is a good law. My own view (as I've expressed several times, which you have ignored) is that at a minimum it's not necessary. It's not possible for me to "prove you wrong," since it's not possible to prove a negative. This is your theory. You've posted various permutations and combinations of your thinking on this matter. And I have simply responded that one or two or even three annecdotes where justice may not have been done do not prove your basic premise. And that is still the case. I'm not required to argue on terms you set.
Here is my "stated position." While I have some misgivings about SYG, the blood bath you claim is inevitable because of it has not yet materialized. And the Martin/Zimmerman shooting, despite the strenuous efforts of various race pimps, the MSM and His Racistness also does not prove the point either.
As to re-reading all of your many repetitive posts on this subject is concerned, I'll wait 'til the Cliff's Notes version comes out, if you don't mind. You have quoted unsourced, decidedly one sided support for your position. You seem to be able to find "quotes" which support your position, but are unwilling to tell us their origin or who is speaking. I saw a piece today that claims SYG deaths in Texas are up, although the numbers are very small. Too small, IMO, to draw any sweeping conclusions. Interestingly, the piece said most of the shooters were minorities as were the "victims." Texas, historically, has been a place where you don't want to get caught in another man's home. Now it's evidently marginally worse. What does that prove? Beats me.
Here's the piece, from the Houston Chronicle. Note it mentions a retired Houston fire fighter who shot his unarmed neighbor to death in a dispute over a loud party. He claimed SYG. The jury gave him 40 years. Note: Harris County juries are notoriously law and order, handing out vastly more death penalties per capita than other Texas counties. Harris County is frequently referred to as the "Texas" of Texas counties. Part of the lore in Houston is the legend of a local prosecutor, summing up a death penalty case, who said not only should this dude get death by lethal injection, we should dig him up every five years for a booster shot!
http://www.chron.com/default/article/Report-Justifiable-homicides-in-Texas-on-rise-3679493.php
http://www.chron.com/news/houston-t...fiable-homicides-rise-with-Castle-3676412.php
Just for the record, I'm not comfortable with permitting citizens to chase down criminals, after the danger has passed, and gun them down. I was in Omaha when a convenience store clerk chased a kid who had snatched a 12-pack of beer and wound up fatally shooting him. He shouldn't have done that. The danger to him and his customers (if any) was over as soon as the kid beat feet out the door. The guy was ultimately charged. I left Omaha before the case was resolved.
It's not up to me to prove you wrong. It's up to you to prove you're right. Which, notwithstanding your enthusiasm and sincerity, you haven't done. You are claiming certain inevitable results from SYG and have offered only your opinion and a tiny handful of annecdotes to prove your point. That is insufficient, if only because your sample size is too small. Way too small.
The issue is not whether SYG is a good law. My own view (as I've expressed several times, which you have ignored) is that at a minimum it's not necessary. It's not possible for me to "prove you wrong," since it's not possible to prove a negative. This is your theory. You've posted various permutations and combinations of your thinking on this matter. And I have simply responded that one or two or even three annecdotes where justice may not have been done do not prove your basic premise. And that is still the case. I'm not required to argue on terms you set.
Here is my "stated position." While I have some misgivings about SYG, the blood bath you claim is inevitable because of it has not yet materialized. And the Martin/Zimmerman shooting, despite the strenuous efforts of various race pimps, the MSM and His Racistness also does not prove the point either.
As to re-reading all of your many repetitive posts on this subject is concerned, I'll wait 'til the Cliff's Notes version comes out, if you don't mind. You have quoted unsourced, decidedly one sided support for your position. You seem to be able to find "quotes" which support your position, but are unwilling to tell us their origin or who is speaking. I saw a piece today that claims SYG deaths in Texas are up, although the numbers are very small. Too small, IMO, to draw any sweeping conclusions. Interestingly, the piece said most of the shooters were minorities as were the "victims." Texas, historically, has been a place where you don't want to get caught in another man's home. Now it's evidently marginally worse. What does that prove? Beats me.
Here's the piece, from the Houston Chronicle. Note it mentions a retired Houston fire fighter who shot his unarmed neighbor to death in a dispute over a loud party. He claimed SYG. The jury gave him 40 years. Note: Harris County juries are notoriously law and order, handing out vastly more death penalties per capita than other Texas counties. Harris County is frequently referred to as the "Texas" of Texas counties. Part of the lore in Houston is the legend of a local prosecutor, summing up a death penalty case, who said not only should this dude get death by lethal injection, we should dig him up every five years for a booster shot!
http://www.chron.com/default/article/Report-Justifiable-homicides-in-Texas-on-rise-3679493.php
http://www.chron.com/news/houston-t...fiable-homicides-rise-with-Castle-3676412.php
Just for the record, I'm not comfortable with permitting citizens to chase down criminals, after the danger has passed, and gun them down. I was in Omaha when a convenience store clerk chased a kid who had snatched a 12-pack of beer and wound up fatally shooting him. He shouldn't have done that. The danger to him and his customers (if any) was over as soon as the kid beat feet out the door. The guy was ultimately charged. I left Omaha before the case was resolved.
Last edited:
busterman62
I got a pocket full of kryptonite
Re: Florida vs. Zimmerman - Q.E.D????????
Must be the judge felt that the video showed the victim attempting more than "Roteta had attempted to fend him off with a bag". Hard to say with the limited info available but it's far more telling than what some pundit selectively spits out to support his own point of view. Thankfully that's never done around here.
It's just my opinion but you might want to use articles rather than commentary to back up your points.
Must be the judge felt that the video showed the victim attempting more than "Roteta had attempted to fend him off with a bag". Hard to say with the limited info available but it's far more telling than what some pundit selectively spits out to support his own point of view. Thankfully that's never done around here.