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.
That wasn't the question I was asked. And while you read what you posted think about this, all that had to occur was G.Z. to believe that a crime was committed to effect an arrest. Now if he's wrong that's probably going to result in a lawsuit. Either case it is as I stated, he "could" have been trying to detain T.M. which is/was perfectly legal.
Since there's more theories being tossed out here than noodles at an Italian restaurant what's another one right?
Oh, give me another break! Do you see people in your area going around performing "Citizen's arrests" on people they THINK might be committing a crime? You're reaching. Trying to detain another person is not legal.
Citizen's arrest - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia In no state may an arrest for a misdemeanor be made without it occurring in the presence of the arrestor.[47] In the case of felonies, a private person may make an arrest for a felony occurring outside his presence but the rule is that a felony must have, in fact, been committed . For example, imagine a suspect has been seen on surveillance video vandalizing a building to the extent that the arrestor believes it rises to a felony due to the damage. If he finds the suspect and makes the arrest but it later turns out that it was misdemeanor damage, the arrestor is liable for false arrest because a felony had not, in fact, been committed.
I didn't write it..... it's the law. No one had the duty to retreat. And it appears that niether did.
Obviously you didn't write it. You are aware that Zimmerman WAIVED his stand your ground immunity hearing. IF his attorneys thought he had a chance of winning on that issue, they would have vigorously pursued that route. They didn't. Why do you believe that the SYG statute trumps the Justifiable Use of Force statute, especially when the defendant has CHOSEN to defend himself via the affirmative defense of self defense? If this case is ALL about SYG, why did Zimmerman choose NOT to have an immunity hearing based on the SYG statute and just get the case thrown out?????
That wasn't the question I was asked. And while you read what you posted think about this, all that had to occur was G.Z. to believe that a crime was committed to effect an arrest. Now if he's wrong that's probably going to result in a lawsuit. Either case it is as I stated, he "could" have been trying to detain T.M. which is/was perfectly legal.
Since there's more theories being tossed out here than noodles at an Italian restaurant what's another one right?
I repeat...what misdemeanor, felony, or crime of any kind on the part of Trayvon Martin did George Zimmerman report, either that night or at any point since? It clearly states in the quote that I provided that, in order to make a citizen's arrest, the citizen must have something beyond a suspicion before they can detain someone. This is not Minority Report...people can't be arrested because an observer thinks
that a crime might occur. Your contention that it's legal to follow and detain someone is truly a dangerous idea to perpetuate...that flies in the face of any common sense measures that we try to teach our children to prevent abduction, rape or molestation. Never talk to strangers, never help the nice man look for his puppy, and scream like a banshee if someone tries to restrain you.
Zimmerman should not be convicted. Trayvon the gangsta was 100% wrong for starting the fight and Zimmerman was only following at a distance to keep an eye on him
Enough of the thug life mentality that certain portions of America have embraced
Damn it you are right! there is no reason that blacks kids should be allowed to go to the store without an escort from a responsible noo-black adult!
The trial will be interesting, far more interesting the Jodi Arias with far more implications about the law and the use of force. Personally, I will always consider Zimmerman guilt of murder but that's as far as it goes what a jury decides is what a jury decides.
Except that he was stopped by a stranger who'd been following him and asked him what he was doing there. That 30 seconds became an altercation, and resulted in an innocent kid shot through the left ventricle with a hollow point bullet. Amazing how all that blood managed to miss Zimmerman's clothing.
I thought that was interesting as well. zimmerman claimed that Trayvon was on top of him when he shot him so why was'nt he drenched in blood after he was shot, do the law of gravity do not apply to him as well?
This is from a 2008 FL. Appellate court decision that appears to differ with your explanation of the burden of proof in cases where self defense is asserted ---
1. When the defense of self-defense is asserted, a defendant has the burden of producing enough evidence to establish a prima facie case demonstrating the justifiable use of force.
2. Law does not require defendant to prove self-defense to any standard measuring assurance of truth, exigency, near certainty, or even mere probability.
3. Defendant’s only burden is to offer facts from which his resort to force could have been reasonable.
4. Once a defendant makes a prima facie showing of self-defense, the State has the burden of proving beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant did not act in self-defense.
5. The burden of proving guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, including the burden of proving that a defendant did not act in self-defense, never shifts from the State.
Is that no longer the law, or is there a reason why the standards in the gz case are different.
Right, the burden of proof does not shift from the State, as far as I know, except in immunity hearings, which are actually sort of civil law hearings. I did not do a good job of describing what it means to file an affirmative defense.......as far as I know, it means that the defense has CHOSEN to put on evidence (offer facts) that it was self defense, AND that is different from just relying on the presumption of innocence where the defense is not required to put on any facts.
" 1. When the defense of self-defense is asserted, a defendant has the burden of producing enough evidence to establish a prima facie case demonstrating the justifiable use of force."
prima facie
: (pry-mah fay-shah) adj. Latin for "at first look," or "on its face," referring to a lawsuit or criminal prosecution in which the evidence before trial is sufficient to prove the case unless there is substantial contradictory evidence presented at trial.
The other poster was arguing that this case is just a straightforward criminal case wherein the defense is going to rely on the presumption of innocence and does not have to put on any "facts" contradicting the State's evidence.
Doesn't matter how many I'm personally aware of, the statement was "my neighbor can't detain me". Again, yes they can as can any other citizen with requirements that vary from state to state.
Your posts give the impression that you've had a lot of experience as a cop.
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.
