Kelly J
04-15-2012, 08:51 AM
http://www.gunvoter.org/gunvoter/forum/viewtopic.php?f=9&t=6707
Politics might convict Zimmerman, the law won't
by oldpuppymax » 15 Apr 2012 01:04
Florida's Stand Your Ground law is brief, clear and simple. The portion of the law relevant to George Zimmerman states deadly force may be used if an individual "...believes that such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm...or to prevent the imminent commission of a forcible felony..." Witnesses may attest to what they saw, but they cannot attest to what Zimmerman reasonably believed concerning the attack by Martin. That is up to Zimmerman himself. IF there existed some length of time between the attack by Martin and the shot fired by Zimmerman, the prosecutor might have a case. In other words, the shot fired by Zimmerman would have been one of retaliation, not necessity based upon fear of life or significant harm. But if the stories of the video tape showing Martin on top of Zimmerman, beating and driving his head into the ground, are accurate, then the killing is within the bounds of self defense law in Florida and virtually any other state in the nation. The pistol was legally carried and used in self defense. The Stand your ground law simply provides greater weight to the legality of Zimmerman's actions.
According to Florida statute, 2nd degree murder is defined as "murder with a depraved mind." There is no premeditation, but the "depraved mind" is one which has no regard for human life. Were Zimmerman's actions characteristic of a depraved mind, or of an individual in fear of his life and well being? A jury will have to decide that question. One hopes that decision will be based upon law and evidence and NOT upon the wishes of the Black Panthers.
Re: Politics might convict Zimmerman, the law won't
by JeffKnox » 15 Apr 2012 03:24
Of course all of this attacking of Stand Your Ground laws is just nonsense. SYG does not do away with the "Reasonable Person" standard, and that is always the consideration in any self-defense shooting. SYG is primarily a tool to protect self-defenders from over-zealous police, prosecutors, and ambulance chasers.
If the evidence shows that Zimmerman created the situation with unreasonable actions leading up to the actual moment of firing the shot, he could be rightly convicted even if the actual firing of the shot, if viewed through a narrow time-window, was justified.
I made a comparison in a recent column with the actions of the Pima County SWAT team in the killing of Jose Guerena. A judge concluded that the officers were justified in the actual shooting, but he did not consider the circumstances which created the justifiable need to shoot. In my book, the police created the need and therefore their actions are not justifiable. Police get much broader leeway in such matters than do lowly citizens.
Case law has established that if, for instance, you get angry at someone for stealing a parking space and you flip them off, you have now contributed to escalating a situation. From that point, if you do not make every effort to break off the conflict, you have some culpability for anything that results, and a self-defense plea becomes more difficult to support.
If Zimmerman saw Martin, reported him, watched where he went, and then, after he thought Martin was gone got out of his car to check the road sign as he said, and was attacked, Zimmerman was unquestionably justified in shooting when he feared his attacker was going to inflict serious bodily harm or kill him.
If, on the other hand, Zimmerman followed Martin and got out of his car to challenge him, resulting in a verbal altercation which escalated into a fist-fight, Zimmerman is on shaky ground regardless of his thoughts or fears at the moment he pulled the trigger.
Another comparison would be a punk making a derogatory comment about my wife as we walk by and I confront him about it. Argument leads to scuffle, leads to punk in a rear naked choke, and then punk pulls out a gun and shoots me. Was the punk in fear of serious bodily harm or death at the moment he pulled the trigger? Most likely, but he had initiated and escalated the confrontation and put himself in the position. If the fight had gone the other way and I ended up fearing for my life - and that of my wife - and shot the punk, the same rule would apply. I had initiated or escalated the situation into a need for deadly force and that could correctly be seen as unreasonable by a jury.
Something else that is going to weigh heavily in the Zimmerman case is how much the jury believes Zimmerman's actions were modified based on his knowledge that he had deadly force available. Had he been unarmed, would he have done everything exactly the same? If not, could that not be construed to suggest some disregard for human life?
I think there is way too much political motivation in this case, but I don't see anything about it that is black-and-white.
In the end, I predict that most of the evidence will be overshadowed by some "character witnesses" testifying that they have heard Zimmerman use "the 'N' word" and make statements about how he would "blow away" some punk in this or that circumstance. Prosecutors will suggest that he was looking for a situation like this and they will get a conviction based on that suggestion. If Zimmerman survives to trial, he will not live long in the general prison population. A death sentence for being a conscientious neighbor will throw a bit of cold water in the faces of folks who carry concealed. That would give the Brady Bunch something to celebrate.
Luckily for Zimmerman he has a record of going out of his way to help people of all races, and he might be able to short-circuit that strategy. It's going to be interesting, and, of course, there are never any winners in a situation like this.
Jeff
Politics might convict Zimmerman, the law won't
by oldpuppymax » 15 Apr 2012 01:04
Florida's Stand Your Ground law is brief, clear and simple. The portion of the law relevant to George Zimmerman states deadly force may be used if an individual "...believes that such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm...or to prevent the imminent commission of a forcible felony..." Witnesses may attest to what they saw, but they cannot attest to what Zimmerman reasonably believed concerning the attack by Martin. That is up to Zimmerman himself. IF there existed some length of time between the attack by Martin and the shot fired by Zimmerman, the prosecutor might have a case. In other words, the shot fired by Zimmerman would have been one of retaliation, not necessity based upon fear of life or significant harm. But if the stories of the video tape showing Martin on top of Zimmerman, beating and driving his head into the ground, are accurate, then the killing is within the bounds of self defense law in Florida and virtually any other state in the nation. The pistol was legally carried and used in self defense. The Stand your ground law simply provides greater weight to the legality of Zimmerman's actions.
According to Florida statute, 2nd degree murder is defined as "murder with a depraved mind." There is no premeditation, but the "depraved mind" is one which has no regard for human life. Were Zimmerman's actions characteristic of a depraved mind, or of an individual in fear of his life and well being? A jury will have to decide that question. One hopes that decision will be based upon law and evidence and NOT upon the wishes of the Black Panthers.
Re: Politics might convict Zimmerman, the law won't
by JeffKnox » 15 Apr 2012 03:24
Of course all of this attacking of Stand Your Ground laws is just nonsense. SYG does not do away with the "Reasonable Person" standard, and that is always the consideration in any self-defense shooting. SYG is primarily a tool to protect self-defenders from over-zealous police, prosecutors, and ambulance chasers.
If the evidence shows that Zimmerman created the situation with unreasonable actions leading up to the actual moment of firing the shot, he could be rightly convicted even if the actual firing of the shot, if viewed through a narrow time-window, was justified.
I made a comparison in a recent column with the actions of the Pima County SWAT team in the killing of Jose Guerena. A judge concluded that the officers were justified in the actual shooting, but he did not consider the circumstances which created the justifiable need to shoot. In my book, the police created the need and therefore their actions are not justifiable. Police get much broader leeway in such matters than do lowly citizens.
Case law has established that if, for instance, you get angry at someone for stealing a parking space and you flip them off, you have now contributed to escalating a situation. From that point, if you do not make every effort to break off the conflict, you have some culpability for anything that results, and a self-defense plea becomes more difficult to support.
If Zimmerman saw Martin, reported him, watched where he went, and then, after he thought Martin was gone got out of his car to check the road sign as he said, and was attacked, Zimmerman was unquestionably justified in shooting when he feared his attacker was going to inflict serious bodily harm or kill him.
If, on the other hand, Zimmerman followed Martin and got out of his car to challenge him, resulting in a verbal altercation which escalated into a fist-fight, Zimmerman is on shaky ground regardless of his thoughts or fears at the moment he pulled the trigger.
Another comparison would be a punk making a derogatory comment about my wife as we walk by and I confront him about it. Argument leads to scuffle, leads to punk in a rear naked choke, and then punk pulls out a gun and shoots me. Was the punk in fear of serious bodily harm or death at the moment he pulled the trigger? Most likely, but he had initiated and escalated the confrontation and put himself in the position. If the fight had gone the other way and I ended up fearing for my life - and that of my wife - and shot the punk, the same rule would apply. I had initiated or escalated the situation into a need for deadly force and that could correctly be seen as unreasonable by a jury.
Something else that is going to weigh heavily in the Zimmerman case is how much the jury believes Zimmerman's actions were modified based on his knowledge that he had deadly force available. Had he been unarmed, would he have done everything exactly the same? If not, could that not be construed to suggest some disregard for human life?
I think there is way too much political motivation in this case, but I don't see anything about it that is black-and-white.
In the end, I predict that most of the evidence will be overshadowed by some "character witnesses" testifying that they have heard Zimmerman use "the 'N' word" and make statements about how he would "blow away" some punk in this or that circumstance. Prosecutors will suggest that he was looking for a situation like this and they will get a conviction based on that suggestion. If Zimmerman survives to trial, he will not live long in the general prison population. A death sentence for being a conscientious neighbor will throw a bit of cold water in the faces of folks who carry concealed. That would give the Brady Bunch something to celebrate.
Luckily for Zimmerman he has a record of going out of his way to help people of all races, and he might be able to short-circuit that strategy. It's going to be interesting, and, of course, there are never any winners in a situation like this.
Jeff