Stand Your Ground law coming under scrutiny due to the Zimmerman/Florida incident

[Jefpainthorse]

I found the affidavit a little weak and over-reaching when I read it.

This case bears on what the "eyewitnesses" saw. The wet and grass stains, cut head and broken nose on Zimmerman would seem awfully conclusive when coupled with the testimony of the people who saw Martin on top of him.

Following Martin... confronting Martin... Bad judgment on Zimmermans part.

There is a reason why the charge is Murder 2... the state does not have enough to make that stick. IIRC in Florida the law won't allow a jury to lower the charge and convict on manslaugter... they have to render a conviction on the original charge.

Asking for a Manslaughter charge probably would be closer to covictable... but the prosecutor knew that would start a riot... plus it's an election year. Murder 2 was a win-win for her.

We have not seen the toxicology...nor the ballistic evidence yet...but the press has beat the circumstantials (phone calls etc) to death already.

 

[Michael Brown]

I don't really care what her ethnicity, race or publicly professed beliefs are, nor her experience.
The facts of this case are:
1. LEOs on the scene did not arrest.
2. Public Prosecutor did not pursue charges, even though some public pressure started building up after a few weeks
3. Special prosecutor was appointed who spent a few weeks and then signed an affidavit that, according to Harvard Professor alan dershowitz, is WITHOUT SUBSTANCE and was signed only to help her re-election.
4. Public pressure in the mainstream media is very much against Mr. Zimmerman.

These are the facts. I'm done feeding this troll.

While I am undecided, as most probably should be since so many facts are in dispute here, I do think there are some important counterpoints to what you are presenting as facts.

1) The investigator DID believe an arrest was approriate. He was overuled by the chief of police. Since police chief is GENERALLY a political position, I am more inclined to respect the opinion of an experienced line investigator than the politically appointed chief.

It doesn't mean one is right and one is wrong, only that the LE decision not to arrest was not without detractors in the investigating agency.

2) The public prosecutor has admitted to having received some level of pressure from the legal community regarding not pursuing charges. Given Zimmerman's father's position as a former judge, many are extrapolating that he may have used soem level of inappropriate influence.

This does NOT mean that this occurred; Only that presenting it as an unassailable defense is dicey.

3) It is ironic that a poster here would use Alan Dershowitz as an example......

I find it a little disingenuous that when we agree with Alan Dershowitz, his opinion is valid and his credentials as a Harvard law professor are beyond reproach but when we disagree with him, he simply another liberal east coast ivy leaguer to be derided by the populists.

4) Here you have an extremely valid point. This is where Zimmerman is getting a completely raw deal. I wish everyone on both sides would simply let this process run its course.

My position on the matter is that the most critical testimony that we can hear will be Zimmerman's interview with the investigator at the police station. Without that, I don't think anyone can form a truly informed opinion on the legality of this shooting.

Since we don't have that, we and everyone else are pretty much basing our opinions off our own political leanings and a great big bundle of speculation and that is NOT due process.

Michael Brown

 

[Stephen Cue]

RE: SYG laws under scrutiny...

http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Latest-News-Wires/2012/0416/Bill-Cosby-says-Trayvon-Martin-case-is-about-gun-ownership-not-race

... ... ...

The FBI numbers are based on voluntary reporting by law enforcement agencies and aren't comprehensive, which means they can't serve as ironclad evidence that expanding a person's right to protect life, limb and property leads to increases - or decreases - in the numbers of homicides deemed justifiable.

Small sample sizes in many states make it difficult to determine if the new or amended laws have had a practical effect. The way law enforcement agencies report the data also could explain why some states report increased numbers of justifiable homicides. For instance, yearly comparisons could be skewed if larger agencies in a state changed their reporting systems or only recently started reporting the data to the FBI.

Florida's justifiable homicides nearly tripled after the state enacted its law in 2005, according to the Florida Department of Law Enforcement, from an annual average of 13.2 between 2001 and 2005 to an average of 36 between 2006 and 2010.

The Florida shooting has sparked a national campaign against such laws. New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg, along with several civil rights organizations, is leading an effort to repeal or reform laws similar to Florida's, though it's too soon to say if that movement will gain traction

Where are the stats that show how many victims suffered severe bodily harm/death due to being legally obligation to retreat before being able to defend themselves AFTER an attack?

Due to the fact that law-abiding citizens are able to DEFEND THEMSELVES AGAINST LEATHAL FORCE WITH LEATHAL FORCE against scumbags when they attack, seems the media can longer distinguish between criminals that were justifiably shot and victims that were shot from unprovoked attacks.

Forget about the mere little fact that most of these so called "justifiable homicides" would not ever happened if there was not evidence to show a law-abiding citizen was attacked and assaulted.

Cases like Zimmerman/Martin are obviously the exception, not the rule; due to the lack of clear cut evidence. In which, no matter how I personally feel about Zimmerman's "guilt" or not. Lack of convincing evidence should rightly set a defendant free.

We need to educate as many of our friends and aquiantances as we can about what justifiable uses of force means.

ONLY a threat of severe bodily harm or death to us, our family, someone we have a relationship with, or to stop a clear forcible felony are justified uses of deadly force. Anything short of these will not only muddy are cause, but will mitigate the future nuturing of gun ownership.

START THE PROSELYTIZING NOW!

 

[Glocktogo]

While I am undecided, as most probably should be since so many facts are in dispute here, I do think there are some important counterpoints to what you are presenting as facts.

1) The investigator DID believe an arrest was approriate. He was overuled by the chief of police. Since police chief is GENERALLY a political position, I am more inclined to respect the opinion of an experienced line investigator than the politically appointed chief.

It doesn't mean one is right and one is wrong, only that the LE decision not to arrest was not without detractors in the investigating agency.

2) The public prosecutor has admitted to having received some level of pressure from the legal community regarding not pursuing charges. Given Zimmerman's father's position as a former judge, many are extrapolating that he may have used soem level of inappropriate influence.

This does NOT mean that this occurred; Only that presenting it as an unassailable defense is dicey.

3) It is ironic that a poster here would use Alan Dershowitz as an example......

I find it a little disingenuous that when we agree with Alan Dershowitz, his opinion is valid and his credentials as a Harvard law professor are beyond reproach but when we disagree with him, he simply another liberal east coast ivy leaguer to be derided by the populists.

4) Here you have an extremely valid point. This is where Zimmerman is getting a completely raw deal. I wish everyone on both sides would simply let this process run its course.

My position on the matter is that the most critical testimony that we can hear will be Zimmerman's interview with the investigator at the police station. Without that, I don't think anyone can form a truly informed opinion on the legality of this shooting.

Since we don't have that, we and everyone else are pretty much basing our opinions off our own political leanings and a great big bundle of speculation and that is NOT due process.

Michael Brown

I agree with all of this. As for 4), I think the press is just mad that Zimmerman didn't make their job easy by running his mouth to them like Gumm and Ersland did!

 

[Stephen Cue]

I agree with all of this. As for 4), I think the press is just mad that Zimmerman didn't make their job easy by running his mouth to them like Gumm and Ersland did!

...and run their mouth they did!

Speaking of Kenneth Gumm's case, a few bits of correlation between his case the the Flo. case.

1. Use of deadly force against an unarmed man.
2. Use of deadly force against what could be assumed as misdeamor A&B.
3. Defendant charged with serious degree of murder/manslaughter.

Of course there are a myriad of differences. From the onset, Gumm did not claim SYG, he stated he thought his life was endanger and tried "retreating around his car a couple times" before firing to "stop him, not kill him".

To me Gumm's mistakes were obviously not calling 911, getting out of his car thus losing protection from 'Castle Doctrine', brandishing his deadly force tool immediatley before an actual threat of severe bodily harm/death (As oppose to a percieved treat to SBH/D).

Then of course, the slew of other mistakes post-shooting.

Outside of the media frenzy, Zimmerman to me has more of a case due to lack of clear evidence/witnesses. There were plenty of eye witness accounts in the Gumm case.

Ill be paying close attention to see how they correlate in the future.

Also, Gumm pled out pre-trial so a jury never got to hear the case in which there was plenty of cause for a judge allow for a trial. Zimmerman will most definitely not plea out IF a judge allows for trial.

Thoughts?

 

[abajaj11]

Now you're just being silly. It's a textbook ad hominem attack. You picked out one small portion of the argument, made an intentionally erroneous assumption and magnified it to overshadow the actual context of the argument. Since you're trying to superimpose an unsupported narcissistic super-ego on me personally, it's absolutely an ad hominem, not a strawman.

Debating with you is like debating a 3 year old. You can't recognize your structural failures, so it's impossible to have an intelligent debate.

Next!

GTG, don't feed this troll any further, please

 

[abajaj11]

While I am undecided, as most probably should be since so many facts are in dispute here, I do think there are some important counterpoints to what you are presenting as facts.

1) The investigator DID believe an arrest was approriate. He was overuled by the chief of police. Since police chief is GENERALLY a political position, I am more inclined to respect the opinion of an experienced line investigator than the politically appointed chief.

It doesn't mean one is right and one is wrong, only that the LE decision not to arrest was not without detractors in the investigating agency.

2) The public prosecutor has admitted to having received some level of pressure from the legal community regarding not pursuing charges. Given Zimmerman's father's position as a former judge, many are extrapolating that he may have used soem level of inappropriate influence.

This does NOT mean that this occurred; Only that presenting it as an unassailable defense is dicey.

3) It is ironic that a poster here would use Alan Dershowitz as an example......

I find it a little disingenuous that when we agree with Alan Dershowitz, his opinion is valid and his credentials as a Harvard law professor are beyond reproach but when we disagree with him, he simply another liberal east coast ivy leaguer to be derided by the populists.

4) Here you have an extremely valid point. This is where Zimmerman is getting a completely raw deal. I wish everyone on both sides would simply let this process run its course.

My position on the matter is that the most critical testimony that we can hear will be Zimmerman's interview with the investigator at the police station. Without that, I don't think anyone can form a truly informed opinion on the legality of this shooting.

Since we don't have that, we and everyone else are pretty much basing our opinions off our own political leanings and a great big bundle of speculation and that is NOT due process.

Michael Brown

Thanks for teasing out the subtleties in points 1 & 2. I agree while the overall decisions were not to arrest and not to press charges, there may have been some dissent, the extent of which we do not know.
For point 3), that fact that Alan dershowitz, an avowed liberal, came out and spoke against this affidavit makes it even stronger than if someone else, like say, John Lott, had done so.
clearly Dershowitz was looking at the legal content of the affidavit. So it makes perfect sense to cite him, especially since no one of any legal stature seems to be refuting him or challenging his views on this.
And whatever Dershowitz's political views are, he IS a legal scholar.
Overall, I think we can all agree this case has been blown WAY out of proportion!

 

[Billybob]

While I am undecided, as most probably should be since so many facts are in dispute here, I do think there are some important counterpoints to what you are presenting as facts.

1) The investigator DID believe an arrest was approriate. He was overuled by the chief of police. Since police chief is GENERALLY a political position, I am more inclined to respect the opinion of an experienced line investigator than the politically appointed chief.

It doesn't mean one is right and one is wrong, only that the LE decision not to arrest was not without detractors in the investigating agency.

2) The public prosecutor has admitted to having received some level of pressure from the legal community regarding not pursuing charges. Given Zimmerman's father's position as a former judge, many are extrapolating that he may have used soem level of inappropriate influence.

This does NOT mean that this occurred; Only that presenting it as an unassailable defense is dicey.

3) It is ironic that a poster here would use Alan Dershowitz as an example......

I find it a little disingenuous that when we agree with Alan Dershowitz, his opinion is valid and his credentials as a Harvard law professor are beyond reproach but when we disagree with him, he simply another liberal east coast ivy leaguer to be derided by the populists.

4) Here you have an extremely valid point. This is where Zimmerman is getting a completely raw deal. I wish everyone on both sides would simply let this process run its course.

My position on the matter is that the most critical testimony that we can hear will be Zimmerman's interview with the investigator at the police station. Without that, I don't think anyone can form a truly informed opinion on the legality of this shooting.

Since we don't have that, we and everyone else are pretty much basing our opinions off our own political leanings and a great big bundle of speculation and that is NOT due process.

Michael Brown

I think 1 & 2 are very important, how much of this crap would not have happened if the investigators recommendation had been followed?
As for Zimmerman's dad's possible influence it's being questioned both because of Zimmerman's prior arrest record and his release the night of the shooting.

http://www.veteranstoday.com/2012/03/29/zimmermannofzinger-fix-now-a-fact/

 

[Antigonus]

I wish everyone on both sides would simply let this process run its course.

Without the outrage that many in this thread are decrying, do you think a prosecution would have taken place at all? Before this story became national news, I am aware of no evidence that the DA or anyone else planned to take up this case, so I don't know if letting the process run its course is all that advisable in a situation where the normal process might have seen a man get away with murder, if he is in fact guilty.

 

[Glocktogo]

Justice isn't the goal of the legal system. Application of the legal system is. Sad, but true in many cases.