I have a question regarding Florida law. The prosecution is going to present all their evidence that makes it look like Zimmerman murdered Martin. What is the defense's response to that? They can say self-defense, but doesn't that mean Zimmerman has to get on the witness stand to explain his chain of events and then answer some uncomfortable questions in a cross examination? This is really only coming from background of television legal drama, but I thought normally it is a bad idea to let the defendant be cross examined?
Putting the defendant on the stand basically means putting his credibility at issue in the trial and opening him up to a lot of potentially harmful character evidence. I'm not familiar with the details of the SYG defense/regular self-defense/whatever will be used; it's possible that his credibility will already be an issue.
That said, unless the prosecution can put together a solid case, he doesn't need to put on a defense at all. It all depends on how much evidence they really have. Enough to prove 2nd degree murder is tough. Involuntary manslaughter is obviously much easier, since Zimmerman has admitted shooting Martin and that's pretty much all there is. At that point he would need to put on a defense.
I have a question regarding Florida law. The prosecution is going to present all their evidence that makes it look like Zimmerman murdered Martin. What is the defense's response to that? They can say self-defense, but doesn't that mean Zimmerman has to get on the witness stand to explain his chain of events and then answer some uncomfortable questions in a cross examination? This is really only coming from background of television legal drama, but I thought normally it is a bad idea to let the defendant be cross examined?
It's a bad idea to let the defendant be cross-examined. It's a worse idea to not let him take the stand, particularly when the self-defense case rests heavily on events only he can testify to. Not putting him on the stand means those events aren't entered into evidence; putting him on the stand means the prosecution can try and poke holes in his story or discredit him, thereby making the jury discount those events. A good defense attorney will try and keep her client from taking the stand if there's plenty of other exonerating evidence; as far as we know, there is very little beyond Zimmerman's words to substantiate his self-defense claim. In this situation a good defense attorney puts the client on the stand and as best as possible prepares them to withstand a cross-examination.
I have a question regarding Florida law. The prosecution is going to present all their evidence that makes it look like Zimmerman murdered Martin. What is the defense's response to that? They can say self-defense, but doesn't that mean Zimmerman has to get on the witness stand to explain his chain of events and then answer some uncomfortable questions in a cross examination? This is really only coming from background of television legal drama, but I thought normally it is a bad idea to let the defendant be cross examined?
Putting the defendant on the stand basically means putting his credibility at issue in the trial and opening him up to a lot of potentially harmful character evidence. I'm not familiar with the details of the SYG defense/regular self-defense/whatever will be used; it's possible that his credibility will already be an issue.
That said, unless the prosecution can put together a solid case, he doesn't need to put on a defense at all. It all depends on how much evidence they really have. Enough to prove 2nd degree murder is tough. Involuntary manslaughter is obviously much easier, since Zimmerman has admitted shooting Martin and that's pretty much all there is. At that point he would need to put on a defense.
I'm hoping they go for manslaughter or something, because it will be relatively easy to prove, the sentence isn't too harsh, and send a message to not ignore 9/11 operators when they tell you to not follow someone
Edit: wait what they charged him with 2nd degree? They must have something we don't know about
I'm hoping they go for manslaughter or something, because it will be relatively easy to prove, the sentence isn't too harsh, and send a message to not ignore 9/11 operators when they tell you to not follow someone
Edit: wait what they charged him with 2nd degree? They must have something we don't know about
No, not really. See my posts last page.
I also don't really care about "sending a message" not to "ignore 911 operators." 911 operators have no authority, nor should they, and it is not unheard of at all for them to fuck up greatly leading to less than desirable outcomes for those that listen to them.
You want to send a message about unwarranted escalation of force, fine. Initiating verbal confrontations needlessly while armed, sure. I may or may not agree, but whatevs. But 911 operators? People really need to get over that tidbit. It's meaningless, and always has been.
EDIT: Basically, it smacks of an attempt to latch on to some authority that Zimmerman defied with his initial actions, thus clearly and easily placing all fault with him. But no, there was no such authority. All fault may still lie with him, but you don't get to take the easy road of "zomg 911 operator."
I'm hoping they go for manslaughter or something, because it will be relatively easy to prove, the sentence isn't too harsh, and send a message to not ignore 9/11 operators when they tell you to not follow someone
Edit: wait what they charged him with 2nd degree? They must have something we don't know about
No, not really. See my posts last page.
I also don't really care about "sending a message" not to "ignore 911 operators." 911 operators have no authority, nor should they, and it is not unheard of at all for them to fuck up greatly leading to less than desirable outcomes for those that listen to them.
You want to send a message about unwarranted escalation of force, fine. Initiating verbal confrontations needlessly while armed, sure. I may or may not agree, but whatevs. But 911 operators? People really need to get over that tidbit. It's meaningless, and always has been.
EDIT: Basically, it smacks of an attempt to latch on to some authority that Zimmerman defied with his initial actions, thus clearly and easily placing all fault with him. But no, there was no such authority. All fault may still lie with him, but you don't get to take the easy road of "zomg 911 operator."
I'd say it'd be better to send the message of "Don't put yourself into a pointless and potentially dangerous situation that you can avoid even if you are armed. It can ruin your life, even if you're not the one lying dead on the ground."
That would probably be a good message to send. Because seriously, besides just calling the cops to report suspicious activity, Zimmerman shouldn't have been involved in the situation.
I'd say it'd be better to send the message of "Don't put yourself into a pointless and potentially dangerous situation that you can avoid even if you are armed. It can ruin your life, even if you're not the one lying dead on the ground."
That would probably be a good message to send. Because seriously, besides just calling the cops to report suspicious activity, Zimmerman shouldn't have been involved in the situation.
See, this is not an unreasonable argument. And, unsurprisingly, this is something that pretty much everybody with a carry permit that I know understands. I still won't say that I accept guilt for Zimmerman given what we know now, nor am I claiming his innocence, nor do I think you and I totally agree in general. Just that this is not at all an unreasonable message.
But "you'd best listen to the 911 operator or else?" Yeah, fuck that.
I have a question regarding Florida law. The prosecution is going to present all their evidence that makes it look like Zimmerman murdered Martin. What is the defense's response to that? They can say self-defense, but doesn't that mean Zimmerman has to get on the witness stand to explain his chain of events and then answer some uncomfortable questions in a cross examination? This is really only coming from background of television legal drama, but I thought normally it is a bad idea to let the defendant be cross examined?
Putting the defendant on the stand basically means putting his credibility at issue in the trial and opening him up to a lot of potentially harmful character evidence. I'm not familiar with the details of the SYG defense/regular self-defense/whatever will be used; it's possible that his credibility will already be an issue.
That said, unless the prosecution can put together a solid case, he doesn't need to put on a defense at all. It all depends on how much evidence they really have. Enough to prove 2nd degree murder is tough. Involuntary manslaughter is obviously much easier, since Zimmerman has admitted shooting Martin and that's pretty much all there is. At that point he would need to put on a defense.
I'm hoping they go for manslaughter or something, because it will be relatively easy to prove, the sentence isn't too harsh, and send a message to not ignore 9/11 operators when they tell you to not follow someone
Edit: wait what they charged him with 2nd degree? They must have something we don't know about
Maybe, maybe not. One fun little factoid I just saw in the Times about the difference between a murder charge and a manslaughter charge in Florida -- defendants charged with murder are not automatically entitled to be released on bond. They have to have a special, more-extensive bond hearing which could take place weeks from now. One effect of the charge, then, is that he's probably going to spend several nights in jail.
Even before today, Zimmerman's been having just about the worst week any defendant can have. He totally dropped out of communication with his previous legal team, he published an amateurish and marginally incoherent PR website without talking to any of his lawyers first, and he took it upon himself to cold-call the special prosecutor's office instead of availing himself of his rights either to remain silent or to have legal counsel while speaking with the authorities. From the outside, it sort of looks like he's on the verge of cracking. A week in jail might be enough to push him to the tipping point where he begs for a plea agreement.
Cops still have greater latitude on the use of force.. That's just a bit of hyperbole.
Yeah, although a cop probably would have just tazered Trayvon seventeen times and we could be here arguing about whether or not it should have been sixteen or seventeen
0
Options
AManFromEarthLet's get to twerk!The King in the SwampRegistered Userregular
Cops still have greater latitude on the use of force.. That's just a bit of hyperbole.
Yeah, although a cop probably would have just tazered Trayvon seventeen times and we could be here arguing about whether or not it should have been sixteen or seventeen
Even before today, Zimmerman's been having just about the worst week any defendant can have. He totally dropped out of communication with his previous legal team, he published an amateurish and marginally incoherent PR website without talking to any of his lawyers first, and he took it upon himself to cold-call the special prosecutor's office instead of availing himself of his rights either to remain silent or to have legal counsel while speaking with the authorities. From the outside, it sort of looks like he's on the verge of cracking. A week in jail might be enough to push him to the tipping point where he begs for a plea agreement.
Do we know what he said to the prosecutor? I assume the prosecutor told Zimmerman to shut the fuck up and get off the phone.
Also true. He could still be found completely innocent, be completely innocent, or spend the rest of his life behind bars.
Well, he cant be found innocent since courts dont really do that. He can be found not guilty, but that doesnt make him innocent. Even an acquittal or a dismissal of all charges doesnt make him innocent, it just makes him not guilty under the law (or, in the case of an acquittal guilty but not really depending on the grounds for the acquittal). I think some courts can make declarations of innocence, but Im not 100% on that.
On a rainy night in February, George Zimmerman fired a single shot, killing 17-year-old Trayvon Martin and sparking an international outcry. Today, he will face a judge, accused of the teenager's murder.
Late Wednesday night, Zimmerman — his head covered — was ushered out of a black SUV and into the Seminole County Jail, just hours after special prosecutor Angela Corey announced a second-degree murder charge against him.
As far as why high profile cases always happen in Florida, particularly Central Florida, it's mostly because we are the largest media market in the country. Our news stations can shout loud enough for the entire world to hear and make what is a common crime elsewhere in the country seem sensationalist.
Look at any news aggregate, you'll find Central Florida's Local 6 News as one of the most contributed online news source outside of the major players. We manufacture it here like no one else can.
I'm glad this guy's going to trial. I don't know what they've got in their pocket, but I think Murder 2 is a bit much. I guess they're ultimately hoping the jury goes for manslaughter instead... assuming the jury doesn't just go "yeah this isn't murder 2" and calling it a day and then double jeopardy protection applies after that. Why not just go for what you have a case for for an actual conviction? I honestly don't think they've got anything. I mean this dude's a fucking wackadoo, but that's about it, not sure if that'll get them murder 2.
not a doctor, not a lawyer, examples I use may not be fully researched so don't take out of context plz, don't @ me
The jury can't pass a verdict on manslaughter unless he's charged with it. they're probably hoping to get him to plee down to manslaughter so the PD and the state can save some face and avoid a long drawn out trial.
California has no explicit "stand your ground" law that I can show you. What California has is no duty to retreat laid out in their self-defense code, and (by my memory) no duty to retreat laid out in their jury instruction, and also (by my memory) case law actively supporting no duty to retreat.
Which is something I've tried to get at repeatedly in this thread, particularly as relates to the "immunity from prosecution" angle. Florida's "stand your ground" law doesn't actually have nearly as dramatic of an effect as a lot of people think it does...it's like the "assault rifle" of self-defense law. Sounds super-scary, but really allows basically the same level of self-defense that was already present (just like "assault rifles" are largely just regular guns that are black instead of brown and maybe have pistol grips). Just like requiring probable cause for an arrest was already the law. And, I'd wager, Florida already had no duty to retreat on the books, and case law supporting it...this law just made it explicit in statute.
It may or may not have an emboldening effect on people towards violence when you do so, but it didn't necessarily change the likely legal outcome.
Anyway, I don't have the time nor legal expertise to prove this to you to a standard you'd accept at the moment. If you're truly interested, I'd wager you could use the googles to track the information down.
However, I'd suggest that you not dismiss the idea just because you don't think this is the case and I can't show it right now. Everybody here pretty much thought that self-defense was an affirmative defense, with the burden on the defense to prove it. And yet. Look into it for yourself. You might learn something interesting.
California has no explicit "stand your ground" law that I can show you. What California has is no duty to retreat laid out in their self-defense code, and (by my memory) no duty to retreat laid out in their jury instruction, and also (by my memory) case law actively supporting no duty to retreat.
Which is something I've tried to get at repeatedly in this thread, particularly as relates to the "immunity from prosecution" angle. Florida's "stand your ground" law doesn't actually have nearly as dramatic of an effect as a lot of people think it does...it's like the "assault rifle" of self-defense law. Sounds super-scary, but really allows basically the same level of self-defense that was already present (just like "assault rifles" are largely just regular guns that are black instead of brown and maybe have pistol grips). Just like requiring probable cause for an arrest was already the law. And, I'd wager, Florida already had no duty to retreat on the books, and case law supporting it...this law just made it explicit in statute.
It may or may not have an emboldening effect on people towards violence when you do so, but it didn't necessarily change the likely legal outcome.
Anyway, I don't have the time nor legal expertise to prove this to you to a standard you'd accept at the moment. If you're truly interested, I'd wager you could use the googles to track the information down.
However, I'd suggest that you not dismiss the idea just because you don't think this is the case and I can't show it right now. Everybody here pretty much thought that self-defense was an affirmative defense, with the burden on the defense to prove it. And yet. Look into it for yourself. You might learn something interesting.
I feel like I have to point something out here. People who dislike assault rifles don't dislike them because they have an aggressive name or bad PR. We dislike them because they have no fucking business being in the hands of civilians. They are weapons that by design have one function only, attacking other humans. They're useless for anything else. If you're using one to hunt game, you're an idiot. If you're using one for home/self defence, you're an idiot. There is no logical reason for anyone outside the military to have one.
So really your example does hold up just not the way you wanted it to. Stand your ground laws are like using an assault rifle to crack a nut.
The jury can't pass a verdict on manslaughter unless he's charged with it. they're probably hoping to get him to plee down to manslaughter so the PD and the state can save some face and avoid a long drawn out trial.
Former Miami U.S. Attorney Kendall Coffey suggested Corey might not stick with the second-degree murder charge through trial. A jury could, under some circumstances, toss the second-degree murder charge and convict of a lesser charge, such as manslaughter, he said.
When people unite together, they become stronger than the sum of their parts.
Don't assume bad intentions over neglect and misunderstanding.
Seeing as imperfect self defense (manslaughter) seems like the more logical charge given what has been released so far, I have come to the following conclusions:
There is evidence that has not been released that can be used against Zimmerman. Autopsy report of Martin. Lies in Zimmerman's testimony that would ruin his credibility if he testified.
They are hoping to plea down to manslaughter.
Corey is playing politics. It will likely be years before a jury reaches a verdict for the short term this should placate all the people that want justice for Martin. If a not guilty verdict is reached they can do what was done in the Casey Anthony case. Throw up their hands and say,"We did everything we could. The evidence was there, but the defense was able to put doubt in the minds of the jury."
Go back to my earlier posts, and look in the first couple where I posted the articles and transcripts. The same ones you are cherry-picking things out of context to make a bunch of claims. If you're not willing to read my posts, i'm not willing to repeat myself (multiple times) for your benefit. It was bolded, in quotes, and specifically highlighted out for your benefit. And yet you somehow missed it. Despite me telling you this multiple times.
If you're not willing to put the bare minimum amount of effort into debating this in a way that isn't very goosey, then i'm not willing to go about typing up another long-winded post explaining why cherry-picking stuff to suit your arguments is wrong and a bad thing to do from a debate standpoint. Or being taken seriously.
What I am waiting for is you to either provide a non discredited source of the claim, or admit you were once again making shit up.The word he used was punks, as we had just covered in the thread you claim to have read. Not a racial epithet. Experts have confirmed this. So either once again there is a different racial Epithet he used somewhere else and you can cite it, or you have not been doing your research, reading the thread, or even paying attention. Which is it?
I have ears, that's my source that he didn't say punks. "Experts" haven't confirmed this. One guy is claiming http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_EhTL9gD0xI @1:44 is punks. And it just frankly is not "punks." Try saying punks in a way that is anything like what is on that tape.
Not a gun control threads, damn I'm sorry I even brought it up.
I'm just saying that the SYG law is a pistol grip, not full auto. Little effect on actual deadliness. SYG just codified what I'd wager was already the case through jury instructions and case law in Florida. Aside from civil immunity, at least.
But the words, "stand your ground," make it seem very dangerous.
Go back to my earlier posts, and look in the first couple where I posted the articles and transcripts. The same ones you are cherry-picking things out of context to make a bunch of claims. If you're not willing to read my posts, i'm not willing to repeat myself (multiple times) for your benefit. It was bolded, in quotes, and specifically highlighted out for your benefit. And yet you somehow missed it. Despite me telling you this multiple times.
If you're not willing to put the bare minimum amount of effort into debating this in a way that isn't very goosey, then i'm not willing to go about typing up another long-winded post explaining why cherry-picking stuff to suit your arguments is wrong and a bad thing to do from a debate standpoint. Or being taken seriously.
What I am waiting for is you to either provide a non discredited source of the claim, or admit you were once again making shit up.The word he used was punks, as we had just covered in the thread you claim to have read. Not a racial epithet. Experts have confirmed this. So either once again there is a different racial Epithet he used somewhere else and you can cite it, or you have not been doing your research, reading the thread, or even paying attention. Which is it?
I have ears, that's my source that he didn't say punks. "Experts" haven't confirmed this. One guy is claiming http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_EhTL9gD0xI @1:44 is punks. And it just frankly is not "punks." Try saying punks in a way that is anything like what is on that tape.
The only thing I can hear distinctly over the wind/breathing is "un-s." Is there a dropped "k" in there? The only one who really knows is Zimmerman. I know when I say "punks" quietly (he is obviously saying it under his breath), the "k" is almost non-existent. That "un" part could be the trail end of "oon," but it doesn't have to be. The first consonant is completely obliterated.
This is basically a Rorschach test. Which one do you want to hear?
I know that a gun was used and someone lost their life. This happens every day and it is disturbing that because of this there are people who state that "so what this happens every day". I am one of these kinds of people and I kind of hate myself for it. But I also find it equally disturbing that people are calling for what is essentially taking away Zimmerman's rights given to him by federal and floridian law. Like it or not the SYG law was written to protect the survivor of incidents such as this and could fundementally be a postitive step to help prevent violent crime. People seeing the lead proscecutor using what could be a loophole, if she cant prove 2nd degree, to keep zimmerman behind bars without bail for a week+ as a positive thing is also disturbing.
The message is obviously "Repeal Stand Your Ground"!
Giving civilians greater latitude on how to use deadly force then police officers is a Bad Idea tm.
Um, since when have cops ever had a Duty to Retreat?
Also, look up Oscar Grant or Amadou Diallo if you really think Zimmerman (or any other civilian in a SYG state) has anything close to a fraction of the leeway we give cops.
Like it or not the SYG law was written to protect the survivor of incidents such as this
Emphasis added. You don't see a problem with laws protecting whoever happens to survive?
Good or bad the law was truely written as a deterrence measure but in order to do such the law would have to differenciate from what is currently in place. Hence "protecting" the survivor. That means that incidents like this one can take place but it also means that there could be many more incidents where someone had second thoughts about attacking another individual as well. Which you cant measure at all.
0
Options
FencingsaxIt is difficult to get a man to understand, when his salary depends upon his not understandingGNU Terry PratchettRegistered Userregular
The message is obviously "Repeal Stand Your Ground"!
Giving civilians greater latitude on how to use deadly force then police officers is a Bad Idea tm.
Um, since when have cops ever had a Duty to Retreat?
Also, look up Oscar Grant or Amadou Diallo if you really think Zimmerman (or any other civilian in a SYG state) has anything close to a fraction of the leeway we give cops.
Cops are investigated whenever they fire a gun. Now, whether they're corrupt or not, there is still at least an attempt.
Like it or not the SYG law was written to protect the survivor of incidents such as this
Emphasis added. You don't see a problem with laws protecting whoever happens to survive?
Good or bad the law was truely written as a deterrence measure but in order to do such the law would have to differenciate from what is currently in place. Hence "protecting" the survivor. That means that incidents like this one can take place but it also means that there could be many more incidents where someone had second thoughts about attacking another individual as well. Which you cant measure at all.
It's a good idea because an unmeasurable effect might produce a net benefit?
Like it or not the SYG law was written to protect the survivor of incidents such as this
Emphasis added. You don't see a problem with laws protecting whoever happens to survive?
Good or bad the law was truely written as a deterrence measure but in order to do such the law would have to differenciate from what is currently in place. Hence "protecting" the survivor. That means that incidents like this one can take place but it also means that there could be many more incidents where someone had second thoughts about attacking another individual as well. Which you cant measure at all.
It's a good idea because an unmeasurable effect might produce a net benefit?
Look I never said it was good. I have stated several times if the Prosc can prove guilt send that dumb bastard to jail. Judging the merits of legistlation such as this has immeasurable bonuses. That should be without a doubt. This laws benefits by default can only really be measured in a drop in violent crime. Which in itself is incredibly difficult to substantiate to the law only. Are we going to argue the need for increased violent crime legislation next? Because that is a whole different can of worms
Cops are investigated whenever they fire a gun. Now, whether they're corrupt or not, there is still at least an attempt.
You are alleging that the cops did not investigate this case. While we can speculate that they may have not handled the investigation appropriately, the allegation that they didn't investigate at all seems to be ignoring the facts.
The police took Zimmerman to the station and interviewed him.
Witnesses were talked to, and their testimony is included in the report.
The investigator presented the case to the district attorney, and wanted to press charges. The district attorney made the decision that there was not enough evidence to charge Zimmerman.
Like it or not the SYG law was written to protect the survivor of incidents such as this
Emphasis added. You don't see a problem with laws protecting whoever happens to survive?
Good or bad the law was truely written as a deterrence measure but in order to do such the law would have to differenciate from what is currently in place. Hence "protecting" the survivor. That means that incidents like this one can take place but it also means that there could be many more incidents where someone had second thoughts about attacking another individual as well. Which you cant measure at all.
It's a good idea because an unmeasurable effect might produce a net benefit?
Look I never said it was good. I have stated several times if the Prosc can prove guilt send that dumb bastard to jail. Judging the merits of legistlation such as this has immeasurable bonuses. That should be without a doubt. This laws benefits by default can only really be measured in a drop in violent crime. Which in itself is incredibly difficult to substantiate to the law only. Are we going to argue the need for increased violent crime legislation next? Because that is a whole different can of worms
The "benefits" maybe can only be measured by a drop in crime (well, technically it could also result in more violent crimes ending with the perpetrator's death or some other improved defensive result) but there's no reason to assume that it will have such a benefit. You could also see an increase in crime because people think they'll be protected by SYG, something that could have been very relevant in this case if either Martin or Zimmerman or the police thought it applied.
I am assuming nothing. I am just providing opinion and conjecture. It is easy to lookup why the law was written which is essentially what I presented. Then I added a quick opinion on it. But this wasnt even the main point of my posting. Looks like I got in another dialogue with someone who likes to nitpick.
The message is obviously "Repeal Stand Your Ground"!
Giving civilians greater latitude on how to use deadly force then police officers is a Bad Idea tm.
Um, since when have cops ever had a Duty to Retreat?
Also, look up Oscar Grant or Amadou Diallo if you really think Zimmerman (or any other civilian in a SYG state) has anything close to a fraction of the leeway we give cops.
Cops are investigated whenever they fire a gun. Now, whether they're corrupt or not, there is still at least an attempt.
Zimmerman was investigated too.
And nowhere in SYG does it prohibit investigation of any shooting, even if the shooter is claiming self-defense on SYG grounds.
"Everyone knows that an armed man killing an unarmed man is wrong. They may find it hard to admit, but they know it."
THANK YOU.
If I'm on top of a smaller/weaker/less combat-effective woman with both hands wrapped around her neck and she shoots me, she's "wrong" for killing an unarmed man.
And deep down, she knows it.
Thank you, Ms. Corey, for your moral wisdom, which is always best encapsulated by blanket statements. Certainly things like the specific elements of each case have no bearing on whether an action in the case was right or wrong.
I am assuming nothing. I am just providing opinion and conjecture. It is easy to lookup why the law was written which is essentially what I presented. Then I added a quick opinion on it. But this wasnt even the main point of my posting. Looks like I got in another dialogue with someone who likes to nitpick.
You complained that Zimmerman was being denied his right to shoot people (or right not to be charged? What other "right" is being taken away, exactly?) and accused the prosecutor of abusing loopholes to keep him in jail. Yes, that still looks an awful lot like Zimmerman/SYG advocacy.
I am assuming nothing. I am just providing opinion and conjecture. It is easy to lookup why the law was written which is essentially what I presented. Then I added a quick opinion on it. But this wasnt even the main point of my posting. Looks like I got in another dialogue with someone who likes to nitpick.
You complained that Zimmerman was being denied his right to shoot people (or right not to be charged? What other "right" is being taken away, exactly?) and accused the prosecutor of abusing loopholes to keep him in jail. Yes, that still looks an awful lot like Zimmerman/SYG advocacy.
Yeah I stated he is being denied his right to shoot people. That is exactly what I said.
I am assuming nothing. I am just providing opinion and conjecture. It is easy to lookup why the law was written which is essentially what I presented. Then I added a quick opinion on it. But this wasnt even the main point of my posting. Looks like I got in another dialogue with someone who likes to nitpick.
You complained that Zimmerman was being denied his right to shoot people (or right not to be charged? What other "right" is being taken away, exactly?) and accused the prosecutor of abusing loopholes to keep him in jail. Yes, that still looks an awful lot like Zimmerman/SYG advocacy.
Yeah I stated he is being denied his right to shoot people. That is exactly what I said.
Your exact phrasing was "But I also find it equally disturbing that people are calling for what is essentially taking away Zimmerman's rights given to him by federal and floridian law." Which rights?
There was only one voice screaming. It was screaming so loud that it could be heard away from the sight of the murder, through the walls of the houses of the people who were calling 911, over the phone to the dispatcher on the other end. It was proven beyond a reasonable doubt that that voice was not Zimmerman's after Zimmerman claimed self defense, and that he was the one screaming at the top of his lungs for help. Unless you're trying to tell me that a third party was present at the murder, there is only one person that can be.
Uh, where was it proven "beyond a reasonable doubt" that the voice was not Zimmerman's?
The audio expert, Tom Owens (who has his own issues regarding his history of in-court testimony*), said that a 90% match was needed to positively identify Zimmerman in a court of law. Owens said that he was able to get a 38% match, which was insufficient to positively identify the voice as Zimmerman's.
However, the inability of the expert to positively identify the voice as Zimmerman's does not "prove" the voice is not Zimmerman's. It just means that Owens wasn't able to prove that it was. Similar to how a Not Guilty verdict in a criminal case doesn't "prove" the defendant is Innocent. The failure to prove a positive claim does not in itself prove the opposite claim.
And at no point has Owens (or anyone else) "proven" that the voice was Martin's. As it stands, we don't know whose voice it is.
*Owens, in this case, claims he needs a 90% match to identify Zimmerman. But in a previous murder case he testified that he could positively identify the defendant with only a 68% match. That's a pretty big discrepancy for an expert to have when you're talking about convicting a person of murder.
Once again, he said he would expect a 90% match based on the quality of the audio. There are certain situations where the audio quality would be much lower, which would lower the results of the match.
The outcome he received is extremely low for it to be likely to have been him. A 38 percent chance/match is not high at all. That'd be a situation where you could reasonably reject the null hypothesis---That Zimmerman is telling the truth and is innocent. IE: Burden of proof and all that.
If 90% match is the standard to positively identify Zimmerman's voice, then why isn't a 90% match also required to prove it's Martin's voice? If Zimmerman failing to get a 90% match leads us to believe the voice is not Zimmerman's, then a failure to reach a 90% match on Martin would also lead us to believe the voice is not Martin's.
Which leaves us... where, exactly?
Without a positive match one way or the other, I don't see much value in the voice analysis for either side. Failing to prove it's Zimmerman's voice doesn't prove it's Martin's voice, and failing to prove it's Martin's voice doesn't prove it's Zimmerman's voice.
At best (or worst?), we'll end up with some mess where Martin's girlfriend gets up on the stand and says "Yeah, that's Trayvon Martin's voice, I recognize it", after which Zimmerman's dad will get up on the stand and say "Yeah, that's George Zimmerman's voice, I recognize it."
Posts
Putting the defendant on the stand basically means putting his credibility at issue in the trial and opening him up to a lot of potentially harmful character evidence. I'm not familiar with the details of the SYG defense/regular self-defense/whatever will be used; it's possible that his credibility will already be an issue.
That said, unless the prosecution can put together a solid case, he doesn't need to put on a defense at all. It all depends on how much evidence they really have. Enough to prove 2nd degree murder is tough. Involuntary manslaughter is obviously much easier, since Zimmerman has admitted shooting Martin and that's pretty much all there is. At that point he would need to put on a defense.
It's a bad idea to let the defendant be cross-examined. It's a worse idea to not let him take the stand, particularly when the self-defense case rests heavily on events only he can testify to. Not putting him on the stand means those events aren't entered into evidence; putting him on the stand means the prosecution can try and poke holes in his story or discredit him, thereby making the jury discount those events. A good defense attorney will try and keep her client from taking the stand if there's plenty of other exonerating evidence; as far as we know, there is very little beyond Zimmerman's words to substantiate his self-defense claim. In this situation a good defense attorney puts the client on the stand and as best as possible prepares them to withstand a cross-examination.
I'm hoping they go for manslaughter or something, because it will be relatively easy to prove, the sentence isn't too harsh, and send a message to not ignore 9/11 operators when they tell you to not follow someone
Edit: wait what they charged him with 2nd degree? They must have something we don't know about
No, not really. See my posts last page.
I also don't really care about "sending a message" not to "ignore 911 operators." 911 operators have no authority, nor should they, and it is not unheard of at all for them to fuck up greatly leading to less than desirable outcomes for those that listen to them.
You want to send a message about unwarranted escalation of force, fine. Initiating verbal confrontations needlessly while armed, sure. I may or may not agree, but whatevs. But 911 operators? People really need to get over that tidbit. It's meaningless, and always has been.
EDIT: Basically, it smacks of an attempt to latch on to some authority that Zimmerman defied with his initial actions, thus clearly and easily placing all fault with him. But no, there was no such authority. All fault may still lie with him, but you don't get to take the easy road of "zomg 911 operator."
I'd say it'd be better to send the message of "Don't put yourself into a pointless and potentially dangerous situation that you can avoid even if you are armed. It can ruin your life, even if you're not the one lying dead on the ground."
That would probably be a good message to send. Because seriously, besides just calling the cops to report suspicious activity, Zimmerman shouldn't have been involved in the situation.
See, this is not an unreasonable argument. And, unsurprisingly, this is something that pretty much everybody with a carry permit that I know understands. I still won't say that I accept guilt for Zimmerman given what we know now, nor am I claiming his innocence, nor do I think you and I totally agree in general. Just that this is not at all an unreasonable message.
But "you'd best listen to the 911 operator or else?" Yeah, fuck that.
Giving civilians greater latitude on how to use deadly force then police officers is a Bad Idea tm.
Or "Sanford PD needs a good housecleaning to get rid of the incompetent racists in charge".
Either one works for me, both would be best.
Maybe, maybe not. One fun little factoid I just saw in the Times about the difference between a murder charge and a manslaughter charge in Florida -- defendants charged with murder are not automatically entitled to be released on bond. They have to have a special, more-extensive bond hearing which could take place weeks from now. One effect of the charge, then, is that he's probably going to spend several nights in jail.
Even before today, Zimmerman's been having just about the worst week any defendant can have. He totally dropped out of communication with his previous legal team, he published an amateurish and marginally incoherent PR website without talking to any of his lawyers first, and he took it upon himself to cold-call the special prosecutor's office instead of availing himself of his rights either to remain silent or to have legal counsel while speaking with the authorities. From the outside, it sort of looks like he's on the verge of cracking. A week in jail might be enough to push him to the tipping point where he begs for a plea agreement.
Yeah, although a cop probably would have just tazered Trayvon and we could be here arguing about whether or not it was a justified tazing
Should've been eighteen.
Do we know what he said to the prosecutor? I assume the prosecutor told Zimmerman to shut the fuck up and get off the phone.
Well, he cant be found innocent since courts dont really do that. He can be found not guilty, but that doesnt make him innocent. Even an acquittal or a dismissal of all charges doesnt make him innocent, it just makes him not guilty under the law (or, in the case of an acquittal guilty but not really depending on the grounds for the acquittal). I think some courts can make declarations of innocence, but Im not 100% on that.
Does anyone have a cite for the California Stand Your Ground equivalent? If it helps, heres all of California's laws.
http://articles.orlandosentinel.com/2012-04-11/news/os-george-zimmerman-arrest-20120409_1_special-prosecutor-angela-corey-civil-rights-leaders-second-degree-murder
As far as why high profile cases always happen in Florida, particularly Central Florida, it's mostly because we are the largest media market in the country. Our news stations can shout loud enough for the entire world to hear and make what is a common crime elsewhere in the country seem sensationalist.
Look at any news aggregate, you'll find Central Florida's Local 6 News as one of the most contributed online news source outside of the major players. We manufacture it here like no one else can.
California has no explicit "stand your ground" law that I can show you. What California has is no duty to retreat laid out in their self-defense code, and (by my memory) no duty to retreat laid out in their jury instruction, and also (by my memory) case law actively supporting no duty to retreat.
Which is something I've tried to get at repeatedly in this thread, particularly as relates to the "immunity from prosecution" angle. Florida's "stand your ground" law doesn't actually have nearly as dramatic of an effect as a lot of people think it does...it's like the "assault rifle" of self-defense law. Sounds super-scary, but really allows basically the same level of self-defense that was already present (just like "assault rifles" are largely just regular guns that are black instead of brown and maybe have pistol grips). Just like requiring probable cause for an arrest was already the law. And, I'd wager, Florida already had no duty to retreat on the books, and case law supporting it...this law just made it explicit in statute.
It may or may not have an emboldening effect on people towards violence when you do so, but it didn't necessarily change the likely legal outcome.
Anyway, I don't have the time nor legal expertise to prove this to you to a standard you'd accept at the moment. If you're truly interested, I'd wager you could use the googles to track the information down.
However, I'd suggest that you not dismiss the idea just because you don't think this is the case and I can't show it right now. Everybody here pretty much thought that self-defense was an affirmative defense, with the burden on the defense to prove it. And yet. Look into it for yourself. You might learn something interesting.
I feel like I have to point something out here. People who dislike assault rifles don't dislike them because they have an aggressive name or bad PR. We dislike them because they have no fucking business being in the hands of civilians. They are weapons that by design have one function only, attacking other humans. They're useless for anything else. If you're using one to hunt game, you're an idiot. If you're using one for home/self defence, you're an idiot. There is no logical reason for anyone outside the military to have one.
So really your example does hold up just not the way you wanted it to. Stand your ground laws are like using an assault rifle to crack a nut.
Don't assume bad intentions over neglect and misunderstanding.
There is evidence that has not been released that can be used against Zimmerman. Autopsy report of Martin. Lies in Zimmerman's testimony that would ruin his credibility if he testified.
They are hoping to plea down to manslaughter.
Corey is playing politics. It will likely be years before a jury reaches a verdict for the short term this should placate all the people that want justice for Martin. If a not guilty verdict is reached they can do what was done in the Casey Anthony case. Throw up their hands and say,"We did everything we could. The evidence was there, but the defense was able to put doubt in the minds of the jury."
I have ears, that's my source that he didn't say punks. "Experts" haven't confirmed this. One guy is claiming
@1:44 is punks. And it just frankly is not "punks." Try saying punks in a way that is anything like what is on that tape.
QEDMF xbl: PantsB G+
I'm just saying that the SYG law is a pistol grip, not full auto. Little effect on actual deadliness. SYG just codified what I'd wager was already the case through jury instructions and case law in Florida. Aside from civil immunity, at least.
But the words, "stand your ground," make it seem very dangerous.
Don't wing it bro.
The only thing I can hear distinctly over the wind/breathing is "un-s." Is there a dropped "k" in there? The only one who really knows is Zimmerman. I know when I say "punks" quietly (he is obviously saying it under his breath), the "k" is almost non-existent. That "un" part could be the trail end of "oon," but it doesn't have to be. The first consonant is completely obliterated.
This is basically a Rorschach test. Which one do you want to hear?
Um, since when have cops ever had a Duty to Retreat?
Also, look up Oscar Grant or Amadou Diallo if you really think Zimmerman (or any other civilian in a SYG state) has anything close to a fraction of the leeway we give cops.
Emphasis added. You don't see a problem with laws protecting whoever happens to survive?
Good or bad the law was truely written as a deterrence measure but in order to do such the law would have to differenciate from what is currently in place. Hence "protecting" the survivor. That means that incidents like this one can take place but it also means that there could be many more incidents where someone had second thoughts about attacking another individual as well. Which you cant measure at all.
Cops are investigated whenever they fire a gun. Now, whether they're corrupt or not, there is still at least an attempt.
It's a good idea because an unmeasurable effect might produce a net benefit?
Look I never said it was good. I have stated several times if the Prosc can prove guilt send that dumb bastard to jail. Judging the merits of legistlation such as this has immeasurable bonuses. That should be without a doubt. This laws benefits by default can only really be measured in a drop in violent crime. Which in itself is incredibly difficult to substantiate to the law only. Are we going to argue the need for increased violent crime legislation next? Because that is a whole different can of worms
You are alleging that the cops did not investigate this case. While we can speculate that they may have not handled the investigation appropriately, the allegation that they didn't investigate at all seems to be ignoring the facts.
The police took Zimmerman to the station and interviewed him.
Witnesses were talked to, and their testimony is included in the report.
The investigator presented the case to the district attorney, and wanted to press charges. The district attorney made the decision that there was not enough evidence to charge Zimmerman.
The "benefits" maybe can only be measured by a drop in crime (well, technically it could also result in more violent crimes ending with the perpetrator's death or some other improved defensive result) but there's no reason to assume that it will have such a benefit. You could also see an increase in crime because people think they'll be protected by SYG, something that could have been very relevant in this case if either Martin or Zimmerman or the police thought it applied.
Zimmerman was investigated too.
And nowhere in SYG does it prohibit investigation of any shooting, even if the shooter is claiming self-defense on SYG grounds.
If I'm on top of a smaller/weaker/less combat-effective woman with both hands wrapped around her neck and she shoots me, she's "wrong" for killing an unarmed man.
And deep down, she knows it.
Thank you, Ms. Corey, for your moral wisdom, which is always best encapsulated by blanket statements. Certainly things like the specific elements of each case have no bearing on whether an action in the case was right or wrong.
You complained that Zimmerman was being denied his right to shoot people (or right not to be charged? What other "right" is being taken away, exactly?) and accused the prosecutor of abusing loopholes to keep him in jail. Yes, that still looks an awful lot like Zimmerman/SYG advocacy.
Yeah I stated he is being denied his right to shoot people. That is exactly what I said.
Your exact phrasing was "But I also find it equally disturbing that people are calling for what is essentially taking away Zimmerman's rights given to him by federal and floridian law." Which rights?
If 90% match is the standard to positively identify Zimmerman's voice, then why isn't a 90% match also required to prove it's Martin's voice? If Zimmerman failing to get a 90% match leads us to believe the voice is not Zimmerman's, then a failure to reach a 90% match on Martin would also lead us to believe the voice is not Martin's.
Which leaves us... where, exactly?
Without a positive match one way or the other, I don't see much value in the voice analysis for either side. Failing to prove it's Zimmerman's voice doesn't prove it's Martin's voice, and failing to prove it's Martin's voice doesn't prove it's Zimmerman's voice.
At best (or worst?), we'll end up with some mess where Martin's girlfriend gets up on the stand and says "Yeah, that's Trayvon Martin's voice, I recognize it", after which Zimmerman's dad will get up on the stand and say "Yeah, that's George Zimmerman's voice, I recognize it."