Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Interesting case with some similarities... Judge Throws Out Murder Case before Trial, Clears Suspect (http://www.myfoxtwincities.com/dpp/news/minnesota/judge-throws-out-murder-case-before-trial-clears-suspect-mar-28-2012#ixzz1t494gahq - broken link)
Hope it's not off topic, just wanted to show what can happen with a self-defense claim...
Gz " Mr neighborhood watchman" started to follow a person who looked suspicious with a hood covering their face. The hooded person turns around and confronts GZ grabbing at his gun as they tumble to the ground and shoots GZ to death....Would the media be making a hero out of GZ as a perfect citizen out protecting his neighborhood but then this teenaged thug with all his past issues and run ins with authority cut his life short? The media can make any story they want and run with it. The media makes it difficult to find an impartial jury in alot of cases IMO. One of my friends here in Greensboro was called in as a potential juror on John Edwards trial and had to answer an 8 pg questionnaire regarding stuff such as how has the media , Enquirer, gossip mongers etc etc effected her view of John Edwards as a person. I really do believe all the above taints a jury. JMO and sorry I got off topic somewhat
That is one bone I have to pick so to speak..I cannot find him listed anywhere on his high school honor rolls in the past 3 years. No Trayvon Martin on the honor roll. Both sides have to make GZ & TM look better than they probably are/were!
Bet you won't find it at all.......possibly when he was in kindergarten. You know the photo with the white cap & gown on 5 yr. old little boy.pleeese
What still blows my mind is that the people who are not for Zimmerman's conviction rely on the lack of evidence to prove he did anything illegal.
Trayvon supporters rely on speculation about what *might* have happened, with no solid evidence supporting it. The former is how the law is supposed to work. The latter reminds me why juries terrify me!
The burden is on the state here. You cannot just make up a plausible-sounding scenario and convict Zimmerman. You need evidence BARD proving he was in the wrong. Nothing close to that has surfaced. In fact the hard evidence that had come out ends up supporting Zimmerman (range of gunshot, injuries, eyewitnesses).
Might Zimmerman have chased Trayvon with gun in hand? Sure. But then it's also possible Martians came down and killed Trayvon. You can come up with scenarios until you're blue in the face. Without evidence it means nothing.
And btw even if there are some inconsistencies in his story from different tellings, unless some material fact came from that, that's hardly enough to prove a crime BARD. Though I doubt the severity of whatever inconsistencies the state relies on, given how hard they pushed in the bail hearing and how paper-thin their case seems to be.
Ok I think I got it...The statute regarding an aggressor would not apply in an immunity hearing...
In an immunity hearing the following applies...
776.032 Immunity from criminal prosecution and civil action for justifiable use of force.—
(1) A person who uses force as permitted in s. 776.012, s. 776.013, or s. 776.031 is justified in using such force and is immune from criminal prosecution and civil action for the use of such force, unless the person against whom force was used is a law enforcement officer, as defined in s. 943.10(14), who was acting in the performance of his or her official duties and the officer identified himself or herself in accordance with any applicable law or the person using force knew or reasonably should have known that the person was a law enforcement officer. As used in this subsection, the term “criminal prosecution” includes arresting, detaining in custody, and charging or prosecuting the defendant.
(2) A law enforcement agency may use standard procedures for investigating the use of force as described in subsection (1), but the agency may not arrest the person for using force unless it determines that there is probable cause that the force that was used was unlawful. (This was what SPD followed in the beginning, they submitted their findings to the local State Attorney & he concluded GZ was justified in the shooting)
(3) The court shall award reasonable attorney’s fees, court costs, compensation for loss of income, and all expenses incurred by the defendant in defense of any civil action brought by a plaintiff if the court finds that the defendant is immune from prosecution as provided in subsection (1).
History.—s. 4, ch. 2005-27
What still blows my mind is that the people who are not for Zimmerman's conviction rely on the lack of evidence to prove he did anything illegal.
Trayvon supporters rely on speculation about what *might* have happened, with no solid evidence supporting it. The former is how the law is supposed to work. The latter reminds me why juries terrify me!
The burden is on the state here. You cannot just make up a plausible-sounding scenario and convict Zimmerman. You need evidence BARD proving he was in the wrong. Nothing close to that has surfaced. In fact the hard evidence that had come out ends up supporting Zimmerman (range of gunshot, injuries, eyewitnesses).
Might Zimmerman have chased Trayvon with gun in hand? Sure. But then it's also possible Martians came down and killed Trayvon. You can come up with scenarios until you're blue in the face. Without evidence it means nothing.
And btw even if there are some inconsistencies in his story from different tellings, unless some material fact came from that, that's hardly enough to prove a crime BARD. Though I doubt the severity of whatever inconsistencies the state relies on, given how hard they pushed in the bail hearing and how paper-thin their case seems to be.
I wonder how many wittnesses will come forward all of a sudden with their take on the scene. Happens alot in jury trials. The coo coos who want their 15 sec of fame will say they saw something when they did not!
Zimmerman's right to defend himself, while ignoring the fact that Trayvon Martin had the right to go to the store and return without being followed and questioned by anyone: He'd committed no crime nor was he in the process of committing one. Zimmerman had no legal authority to follow and confront Martin; in doing that he gave Martin the right to defend himself, as is stated in the SYG law. Also, it notes that one isn't covered under the law if one has caused the incident.
You are 100% correct! If the state can reasonably prove that GZ was the aggressor...
Sure it is, but for the purposes of an immunity hearing the SYG statute would not apply to someone who was the "attacker", if it is proven that TM was the "attacker" GZ could be immune from prosecution...
That being said...if it goes to trial GZ has claimed self-defense and the justifiable force statute 776.041"Use of force by aggressor." (if he's proven to be the aggressor) may apply...
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
If the state can reasonably prove that GZ was the aggressor...