Florida Sheriffs Association unanimously supports Stand Your Ground

[shadowrider]

If you disagree with this, there is a "contact" button on the link site.

FSA President, Sheriff Grady Judd, today announced, “The right to self-defense is well-established in law. The Florida Sheriffs confirmed this position by voting unanimously, at the 2013 Florida Sheriffs Association Summer Conference, to support the Stand Your Ground law as it is currently written. Our current judicial system is comprised of multiple checks and balances to ensure fair and equitable application of all laws, including Stand Your Ground.”

http://www.flsheriffs.org/newsroom/entry/the-florida-sheriffs-association-supports-the-stand-your-ground-law

[msongs]

1. so can we use SYG against sheriffs? they frequently threaten citizens with bodily harm nt

[shadowrider]

2. HellifIknow. e-mail them and ask. There's a "contact" button on the linked page. n/t

[DonP]

35. Are you insane?

Suggesting a gun control activist to actually do something on their own?

I mean of course, besides whining online, applauding when Bloomberg writes another check and endlessly cutting and pasting things other people wrote.

They don't actually do stuff, they just talk about it a lot.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

36. Oh come now

They can paste that half baked emo news plop into an email just as easily as they can post it here.
The added benefits for both sides:
- we don't have to waste time reading it.
- no one has to waste time explaining why it's logic-free emotion.
- they get some spam... er, emotionally reinforcing emails.

Sounds like a win-win to me.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

4. There is a record of such an altercation

http://www.snopes.com/crime/cops/judd.asp

...when called upon by the media to make a statement about the manhunt and its outcome, Polk County Sheriff Grady Judd explained: "You have to understand, he had already shot and killed a deputy, he had already shot and killed a K-9, and he shot and injured another deputy. Quite frankly, we weren't taking any chances." Sheriff Judd was variously reported as adding, "That's all the bullets we had or we would have shot him more" and "I suspect the only reason 110 rounds was all that was fired was that's all the ammunition they had.

[ManiacJoe]

50. No, SYG against LEOs is specfically not allowed.

[Cooley Hurd]

3. Yay Law Enforcement!

Freepers with badges and an axe to grind.

[gejohnston]

6. What is your issue with SYG vs duty to retreat?

Like many things, it runs in cycles. SYG appeared in US common law 140 years ago, then DTR returned in the 1920s. DTR started falling out of favor when prosecutors began the "you could have jumped out of the second story window to escape." DTR only requires you to if you can do so safely. If you can't, then you may defend yourself. The thing that still perplexes me is how the Zimmerman case created a backlash against SYG, since even the prosecution in their closing arguments said SYG was irrelevant. In fact (if you believe the eye witnesses and forensics) George was straddled, unable to retreat, so it would have been justifiable under duty to retreat.

[Cooley Hurd]

8. Zimmerman defender? Nuff said.

[gejohnston]

9. I'm guessing you didn't watch the trial

BTW, he is registered Democrat. The false claim of him being a racist was disinformation campaign put out by an Orlando PR firm hired by the family lawyer.
http://www.talkleft.com/story/2013/7/14/145748/759/Colo_News/The-Legacy-of-the-George-Zimmerman-Trial
The same lawyer that told Piers Morgan that Zimmerman should be held liable because he had a duty to keep getting his head beat in until the cops got there. Yes, he really said that.
Like I said, since he had no ability to retreat, it would have been justified even under DTR. Speaking of a duty to retreat state.
http://rochester.ynn.com/content/top_stories/490926/jury-finds-roderick-scott-not-guilty/

[Cooley Hurd]

10. How in God's name do you sleep at night?

[gejohnston]

11. I accept the reality of the situation, regardless of where the chips fall

Last edited Sat Aug 10, 2013, 02:14 AM - Edit history (1)

and sometimes ponder the Great Mystery's complexity that is beyond our comprehension. That is the limitation of organized religion, atheism, and rigid ideology.
Putting empirical evidence ahead of my favorite talking head lets me look in the mirror in the morning.

[NYC_SKP]

13. Dear gejohnston:

Please try to remember:

Facts don't matter in the gun outrage discussion.

It doesn't matter that the Zimmerman case didn't involve SYG; if you support SYG you are a GZ pal, get it?

If you even try to point out to someone that there's a difference between semi-autos and full-autos, well you're a gun nut!

AND.... That is an NRA Talking Point!!111!!

Are we clear?

[Tuesday Afternoon]

51. crystal clear.

after the windex, even.

[krispos42]

14. Zimmerman didn't have the right to defend himself because he was the instigator

That's my opinion on the case, even though that's not what the jury ruled.

He stalked Martin, first in his car, then on foot. Martin's actions were reasonable in light of the situation. He had tried to mind his own business, he had tried to walk away, and he didn't want to endanger his relatives by leading a stalker to his stepdad's home.

Martin was under the legal obligation to use reasonable force in subduing Zimmerman. Zimmerman, as the aggressive party, didn't have the right to defend himself.

[gejohnston]

15. That isn't what the evidence showed

There was no evidence of "stalking". As usual, the media got it wrong. What is commonly heard in the media has no relationship with the facts presented in court. That is almost always true with any "trial by media". I know a guy that was on the Chicago Seven jury, and he noticed the same thing.

The evidence is consistent with Martin laying in wait to attack. He didn't try to walk away. They intersected in a vehicle, but Zimmerman did not following him in the vehicle. While it is true Zimmerman claims that he was walking back to his truck when he was attacked, that is the only evidence there is. Anything else is speculation, which is all the State had. Prosecutor John Guy's closing statement was ignore the evidence and "follow your heart." (Yes, he really said "follow your heart" and implied ignoring the evidence.)
Oh, RJ, as an ear witness. Problem is she contradicted herself several times, lied under oath twice, and was never interviewed by the cops in a neutral setting. Her only other statement was a recording in Martin's mom's living room. That is why the jury discounted her account. That was the star witness. The DA knew her case was based on political pressure instead of evidence, which is why she introduced Third Degree Murder based on Aggravated Child Abuse as a charging option (which there is no defense) at the last minute. Judge Nelson didn't accept it.

After watching the entire trial, including the hearings on the evidence the jury didn't get to see, it became clear to me not only did the State fail to disprove self defense, but that the Defense proved it beyond a reasonable doubt and that Trayvon was the aggressor.

Even if Zimmerman were convicted, the DA had enough Brady violations (playing hide and go seek with evidence). In Florida, that alone will get a conviction overturned. Judge Nelson made at least one reversible error by not letting Trayvon's phone contents in.

The good news is Rick Scott's re election possibilities are close to zero, and Angela Corey will be disbarred. Her record of over charging, putting politics (she disbanded the grand jury and charged George at a press conference days before her re election), not turning over exculpatory evidence, is not unique to this case. This case put it in the forefront. She already has a wrongful termination suit against her by the IT guy that blew the whistle on one Brady violation.
The lead prosecutor has the same record. That is why Alan Dershowitz wants them both to be disbarred (actually Dershowitz wants the whole team disbarred including John Guy). Imagine how many people, regardless of race, was denied a fair trail by Corey's office in Duvall County.

[krispos42]

16. It's been reported that Zimmerman left his truck

And Zimmerman himself report that he was following Martin. He said so himself on the 911 call.

If Martin had come to the conclusion that he was unable to escape Zimmerman and that Zimmerman was a reasonable threat to him, then preemptive self-defense is entirely reasonable.


Look, you had an athletic male teenager being pursued by a stranger. Logic and reason suggest that, if somebody that has physical prowess is being stalked by somebody, that somebody must believe he has a way of negating the physical advantage. So Martin thinking that Zimmerman had a weapon AND THAT Zimmerman intended to do him harm AND THAT he had no viable escape route is not unreasonable.


I didn't watch the trial, so I don't know how the witnesses were interviewed or what the prosecutor said, although if he did say "follow your heart", well, that's a bit of facepalm right there.

[gejohnston]

17. True, sort of.

Actually, it was a NEN. Once the operator said "you don't need to do that" Zimmerman agreed, and claims he turned and started walking back to his truck.
But if you listen to the tape, Martin ran out of sight before Zimmerman got out of the car. The operator asked "which way did he go", which Zimmerman got out to look. He ran (based on background noise) to see which direction he was going. He stopped running after the "we don't need you to do that" (based on background noise).
http://www.documentcloud.org/documents/326700-full-transcript-zimmerman.html
The attack happened after this conversation. At the same time, Martin was telling Rachel Jeantel (according to her at one time) he was at Dad's girlfriend's backdoor. True or not? don't know. I do know the attack happened 70 yards away from the dad's girlfriend's house.
The "chasing and stalking" meme came from Martin family lawyer Ben Crump, who is an up and coming ambulance chaser, and the very white bread Orlando PR firm Julian Communications, but not based on any evidence.
http://www.talkleft.com/story/2013/7/11/22341/3139/crimenews/Benjamin-Crump-Who-Screamed-Doesn-t-Matter

If Martin had come to the conclusion that he was unable to escape Zimmerman and that Zimmerman was a reasonable threat to him, then preemptive self-defense is entirely reasonable.

It would not be reasonable under Florida law. There would no reasonableness. Besides, under Florida law, Trayvon would lose that protection once Zimmerman tried to retreat and screamed for help, which Zimmerman did for 45 seconds while he got his head bashed in.

Look, you had an athletic male teenager being pursued by a stranger. Logic and reason suggest that, if somebody that has physical prowess is being stalked by somebody, that somebody must believe he has a way of negating the physical advantage. So Martin thinking that Zimmerman had a weapon AND THAT Zimmerman intended to do him harm AND THAT he had no viable escape route is not unreasonable.

That is speculation. He wasn't stalked. Stalked has a specific meaning. Following is not stalking, or even getting out of the car in your own neighborhood is not stalking. Martin doubled back and ambushed him. Since Zimmerman is not athletic, there would be no reasonableness. That said, Lean does make one paranoid and violent, which Trayvon had a history of using. He also had a record of violence, including decking a school bus driver for no reason. On one of his texts on his phone, he described learning how to punch someone in the face to stun them, and make it easier to get them on the ground, straddle them, and do a ground and pound while making the assaultee helpless. That was evidence was part of the Brady violation and reversible error the jury didn't get. That is what Zimmerman described, and that is what the witnesses saw.
If Martin thought Zimmerman had a weapon, it isn't logical that he would attacked. Speculation means nothing in court. It is what the State can prove. The State proved nothing. It provided no evidence that contradicted Zimmerman's story. I'm not saying that what you speculated is impossible, or didn't happen, just that I find it improbable and there is no evidence that it happened that way. Speculation is nice for talk radio hosts and pundits, but means nothing in a court of law. Politics also has no place in a courtroom. One thing I noticed was that liberal legal blogs, like Talk Left, were saying the same thing as conservative one like Legal Insurrection. Both of which, agree with me.

I didn't watch the trial, so I don't know how the witnesses were interviewed or what the prosecutor said, although if he did say "follow your heart", well, that's a bit of facepalm right there.

I did. Not only did he say "follow your heart" at no time during that three hours did the State say "we proved" because they didn't prove anything. Their entire opening and closing arguments were appeals to emotion and shit they pulled off the top of their head. The defense said "we proved." It was bizarre. What was also bizarre was that most of the State witnesses lawyered up, mostly because they knew of the Brady violations I mentioned before. You can watch the whole thing on youtube if you like. Point is, the case was decided on the evidence. Trayvon Martin is not a latter day Emmett Till, and has nothing in common with that case. Tawana Brawley maybe, but certainly not Emmett Till.

As for a Federal civil rights suit, the feds already sat Ben Crump and the parents and told them the facts of life, not happening. The FBI found no evidence of George being a racist (kind of hard being that his business partner is African American and then there is the Sherman Ware incident. Besides, the law only applies to state actors.
http://edition.cnn.com/2012/05/24/justice/florida-teen-shooting
But it still isn't over. There are still sanctions hearings over the Brady violations, which means if O'Mara wins, and he will, every Florida resident will contribute to the GZ defense fund. Plus, he and Dershowitz are going after Corey's license. The wrongful termination suit I mentioned earlier, and Zimmerman's defamation suit with NBC who doctored the tapes. Zimmerman probably does have a good malicious prosecution case against Angela Corey for the reasons I said before.

Respectfully, I agree with you most of the time, but I sat through the whole thing and came to the conclusion that I did.

[virginia mountainman]

18. I, and the law was with Martin...

...Up till the point he decided to pin Zimmerman to the ground, and smash his head into the pavement..... yes, Zimmerman started it all by making stupid decisions... Martin made an even stupider one and chose to escalate it way too far, and he paid the price for it.

From my chair here, after watching and reading much about the case, I am of the FIRM belief, that what truly happened was simply that two hotheads met in the dark.

Virginia is not a stand your ground state, and by the law, Zimmerman would have walked here as well.. In that second Martin took away Zimmerman's ability to get away, he gave Zimmerman a "green light" so to speak.

[gejohnston]

19. I don't think the law was with Martin

Last edited Sat Aug 10, 2013, 02:09 AM - Edit history (1)

But then, I'm skeptical of the media, especially when the use a picture of a 11 or 12 year old kid instead of a recent picture. Besides, when it comes to trial by media, the media is always wrong.
There is also his history of violence, which is why he was suspended from school. The evidence pointed to Martin ambushing Zimmerman as he described. I base that on the fighting technique he learned, and talked about it in his text messages, match what Zimmerman described. Martin also had a habit of decking bus drivers.
While Martin was a hot head, and probably made paranoid from "lean" usage. Like I said, based on watching the trial, Martin was the aggressor.
I do agree that Zimmerman getting out of the car instead of telling the operator "have the cops look for themselves" was a poor choice. I mean, if I'm stopped at a light and some guy circles my car a couple of times giving me "the look" before walking slowly between houses and looking in windows as Zimmerman claimed, my ass isn't getting out of any car. I'd call the cops and give them a description, but that is me. Of course, that is only his word, but there is nothing to contradict it, or at least the State didn't find any.
According to this, Virginia is SYG by common law, like Washington and California
http://www.volokh.com/2013/07/17/duty-to-retreat/

Out of the liberal legal blogs, Talk Left did the best coverage that I found and explained several things that would be lost on a nonlawyer like myself. The coverage matched what I saw.
http://www.talkleft.com/

Like I told Krispos, what might have happened, and what is proven are two different things. If the empirical evidence conflicts my earlier assumptions and/or the conventional wisdom of those who I share an ideology with (both being the case here), I have to accept the reality of the situation and deal with it. That's the way I'm wired.

[jimmy the one]

21. krispos spot on

gejohnston: There was no evidence of "stalking". As usual, the media got it wrong.

Krispos is spot on here; Stalking didn't need be proven beyond a shadow of a doubt, just that zimm's call to the cops was evidence he was improperly involved, & zimm provoked the incident by his own actions. When there are contributing actions for one side, & mitigating circumstances for the other, there is often 'shared blame' which is what should've gone down here. Shared blame would not completely exonerate zimmerman.
The ALL WHITE jury found him not guilty, whee, all six of them, quelle surprise. A mixed jury likely would've hung, quelle surprise.
I think prosecution shoulda added aggravated assault &/or stalking against zimm, evidently it was considered but not included, dunno florida's way of doing this. Aggravated assault conviction would've fit the 'shared blame' concept, disallowing zimm to get off scot free with a gundeath he himself provoked & was the underlying reason for.
Bar fights often are provoked & the provocations are taken into account by their trial judges, sometimes leading to dismissals (as if martin had lived & zimm filed a complaint for assault).

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

23. An aggravated assault that results in homicide...

...would be murder or at least manslaughter. You can't be charged with 2 crimes for 1 act.

[jimmy the one]

25. child abuse too

dscntnt: An aggravated assault that results in homicide....would be murder or at least manslaughter. You can't be charged with 2 crimes for 1 act

I think you're wrong again batman, at least in florida (what you say could be technically correct tho);

State prosecutors are asking the judge in the Trayvon Martin murder case to instruct the jury to consider lesser charges — manslaughter and aggravated assault —. http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2013/07/10/trayvon-martin-george-zimmerman-trial-animation/2504917/ Zimmerman's attorneys have objected, and Judge Nelson will hold a hearing to decide whether jurors should consider the new charges.. Judge Nelson rejected the prosecution's request to include other charges for the jury to consider that included aggravated assault and felony murder in which the underlying felony would be child abuse for shooting Martin, who was 17.

rightwing slant, which I don't follow reasoning: ..it is obviously true that while the prosecution certainly could have requested inclusion of aggravated assault as a lesser included offense of second degree murder, it did not. http://www.americanthinker.com/2013/07/what_the_zimmerman_prosecution_did_not_do_and_why.html#ixzz2bZQwZK6p why didn't the Zimmerman prosecution seek to insert the aggravated assault charge, particularly when one its own (Guy) must have thought enough of it then to have subsequently stated a few days later a view of the facts that fits the charge precisely?
The prosecution dropped the aggravated assault charge because it knew that, given the elements of assault, proving it would necessarily direct the jury's attention to whether or not Martin was ever -- whether before the struggle, during, or after -- threatened and placed in fear by Zimmerman's actions. That, of course, is the last thing the prosecution wanted to do, precisely because its entire theory of the case was that Zimmerman's thoughts -- not deeds -- are what really made him a murderer.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

30. Generally...

...an unprotracted episode of violence resulting in a homicide would under the law be charged as murder or manslaughter, in some jurisdictions negligent homicide might be an option. The assault which causes the death is viewed as part of the homicide act.

By analogy, when a person is charged with speeding evidence is entered that they were witnessed going 35 and that the posted limit was 25. Charging someone with speeding multiple times for going 28, 32 and 35 mph in that 25 zone violates double jeopardy.

[gejohnston]

32. they added the child abuse charges only because

they failed to disprove self defense, since there is no defense for the third degree murder charge. A 5'11" 17 year old is not a child by any definition. Read the rest.

Go back to Guy's statement to Gutman: "I think there was a struggle. At some point, Trayvon became aware of the gun, and was backing up, and George Zimmerman shot him."

If Guy really thought he had the evidence to show that Martin perceived Zimmerman's deadly weapon and was backing away, how hard would it have been to show that Martin felt threatened and fearful?

Obviously, not hard at all.

In other words, the article is saying that the trial was an evidence free show trial, which is the same thing the left leaning Talk Left and Alan Dershowitz said.

[gejohnston]

31. sorry, compelely wrong

Like I told Krispos, when prosecutors entire closing argument is appeal to emotion and innuendo without once saying "we proved", the verdict can only go one way. Between the eye witness John Good, the rebuttal witness fiasco, and John Guy's ignore the evidence and "follow your heart", no serious observer can say race had anything to do with the jury's decision.

Krispos is spot on here; Stalking didn't need be proven beyond a shadow of a doubt, just that zimm's call to the cops was evidence he was improperly involved, & zimm provoked the incident by his own actions. When there are contributing actions for one side, & mitigating circumstances for the other, there is often 'shared blame' which is what should've gone down here. Shared blame would not completely exonerate zimmerman.

Sorry, the evidence showed the opposite of stalking. Stalking has a specific meaning. Sorry, the rest of the stuff is your made up opinion. Improper means nothing if it is legal. AFAIK, none of that is in the law. They would still have to prove their case. Since they didn't have evidence to support the case they had, how do you think they could have proven something like that if it were illegal. Have to remember, the "stalking" claim came from some politician or pundit who was talking out of their ass and not based on any evidence.

The ALL WHITE jury found him not guilty, whee, all six of them, quelle surprise. A mixed jury likely would've hung, quelle surprise.

Hate to break it to you, but it was a mixed jury. One of the many lies. Five were white, one Malay or Hispanic. The alternate was an African American guy. The jury reflected the demographics of the Sanford area, which is 80 percent white. All of the people of color that I know who watched the trial agree with the jury. It has nothing to do with race. It was based on evidence and the law. Besides, Zimmerman isn't white. He is Hispanic. People like Al Sharpton try to compare this to Emmett Till. This has more in common with Tawana Brawley and Richard Jewell than Emmett Till.

I think prosecution shoulda added aggravated assault &/or stalking against zimm, evidently it was considered but not included, dunno florida's way of doing this. Aggravated assault conviction would've fit the 'shared blame' concept, disallowing zimm to get off scot free with a gundeath he himself provoked & was the underlying reason for.

They could have, but stalking has a specific legal meaning, which this case clearly is not and the judge would not allow it. With aggravated assault, they would have to prove Zimm started the fight. They failed to prove anything and provided no evidence. All of the prosecution witnesses favored the defense. Once again, all of the evidence provided in trial favored the defense. That is why the tried the third degree murder aggravated child abuse, which has no defense (because the State could no disprove self defense otherwise) at the last minute even though they wrote the brief days in advance. Truth is, had everyone been the same race, the case would have never gone to trial. That is why the grand jury was still taking in evidnece when Angela Corey shut it down and used a probable cause affidavit that Alan Dershowitz called "dishonest and flimsy." IOW, Zimm should go after Corey for malicious prosecution.

Bar fights often are provoked & the provocations are taken into account by their trial judges, sometimes leading to dismissals (as if martin had lived & zimm filed a complaint for assault).

Which is irrelevant to this case if true. At least two people were calling 911, those were the eye witnesses. Had the cops got there before the shot, Martin would be charged with felony battery if Zimmerman lived (he endured a 45 second beating to the face and having his head bounced off the sidewalk before he fired. That would add another five to ten minutes of beating.)

Talk Left describes the case best:

Whether George Zimmerman is acquitted or convicted, and I am not making any predictions before hearing closing arguments and reading the jury instructions, the legacy of this case will be that the media never gets it right, and worse, that a group of lawyers, with the aid of a public relations team, who had a financial stake in the outcome of pending and anticipated civil litigation, were allowed to commandeer control of Florida's criminal justice system, in pursuit of a divisive, personal agenda.

http://www.talkleft.com/story/2013/7/11/22341/3139/crimenews/Benjamin-Crump-Who-Screamed-Doesn-t-Matter

[jimmy the one]

37. half first thot him guilty

dscntnt: Generally....an unprotracted episode of violence resulting in a homicide would under the law be charged as murder or manslaughter.. The assault which causes the death is viewed as part of the homicide act.

.. you might be citing the fbi 'hierarchy rule' where, when there are several crimes committed, the most severe crime is the only one which is reported to fbi uniform crime reports (UCR); thus, if you are hit over the head with a stick & then robbed, the crime is 'robbery' but the police report lists both aggr'd asslt as well as robbery. If you're robbed & murdered it's a murder. I think then the courts have discretion as to handling the police report, & little to do with fbi UCR.

johnston: Hate to break it to you, but it was a mixed jury. One of the many lies. Five were white, one Malay or Hispanic. The alternate was an African American guy. The jury reflected the demographics of the Sanford area, which is 80% white. All of the people of color that I know who watched the trial agree with the jury. It has nothing to do with race.

Are you quoting rush limbaugh on this? You didn't break anything to me, I was aware there were 5 of 6 white non hispanic, & I think the other puerto rican, but no black african americans, and that is somehow representative of the sanford area demographics? wha' happen to 'no taxation without representation'?
All of the people of color you know agreed with the jury. Funny I talked with three black guys I met briefly & they all thought zimm got away with murder, maybe yours knew you a gun owner & didn't want to make waves? Your anecdotes are worthless. Then you say 'it has nothing to do with race', well I bet those jurors all said they weren't racists one little bit, & I also bet you believed them too.

gej: It was based on evidence and the law.. Zimmerman isn't white. He is Hispanic.

He's white hispanic, duh. And if it was 'based on evidence & the law', why this then if the evidence was so clear cut: Jul 16, 2013 - On the first round of voting, the split was 3-2-1, with three not guilty votes, 2 manslaughter votes and 1 second-degree murder vote. If half/3 at first thought zimm guilty, where'd they get the evidence for thinking so? musta been there at some point, back to the drawing board for you.

[gejohnston]

38. until they went through the evidence and the jury instructions

I have been on juries, it always works that way.

Are you quoting rush limbaugh on this? You didn't break anything to me, I was aware there were 5 of 6 white non hispanic, & I think the other puerto rican, but no black african americans, and that is somehow representative of the sanford area demographics? wha' happen to 'no taxation without representation'?
All of the people of color you know agreed with the jury. Funny I talked with three black guys I met briefly & they all thought zimm got away with murder, maybe yours knew you a gun owner & didn't want to make waves? Your anecdotes are worthless. Then you say 'it has nothing to do with race', well I bet those jurors all said they weren't racists one little bit, & I also bet you believed them too.

No, I looked it up in netural sources. Did those people watch the trial or base their opinion on what some pundit said? That is really the dividing line. Those who are informed on the facts of the case by watching it vs getting nonsense from the media. You are accusing the jurors of being racist without any evidence other than being white or Hispanic, then that is a racist statement. While some did feel that way, feelings and emotions have no place in court.
http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/frame_game/2013/07/did_george_zimmerman_get_away_with_murder_no_juror_b29_is_being_framed.html

He's white hispanic, duh. And if it was 'based on evidence & the law', why this then if the evidence was so clear cut: Jul 16, 2013 - On the first round of voting, the split was 3-2-1, with three not guilty votes, 2 manslaughter votes and 1 second-degree murder vote. If half/3 at first thought zimm guilty, where'd they get the evidence for thinking so? musta been there at some point, back to the drawing board for you.

First off, there is no such thing as a "white Hispanic" unless you are saying his ancestor is northern Spain or Cuban. The media created it because at first they said "white" than they had to back track to explain the Peruvian Indian/Black mother (and his voter registration.) without interfering with the established narrative.

He is actually mixed race. If you saw him on the street, he would not be described as white. First vote means nothing, it is a gauge to see where everyone is at.
When the jury decides, they take all of the evidence with them and if they need something from the transcript, they get the quote along with their notes. The minds were changed there.

Back to the drawing board with you.

[gejohnston]

39. ultimately it boils down to this

It is the prosecution's job to prove their case beyond a reasonable doubt. They didn't even reach preponderance of the evidence. An all black jury in Jacksonville would have come to the same conclusion. At best they offered alternative theories, but no evidence to back them up.
There was not evidence to disprove self defense, nor prove any of the claims made by the State, family lawyers, or TV and radio talking heads. IOW, it wouldn't have not to trial if it were not for the political pressure.

Alan Dershowitz described it this way:

"She (State Attorney Angela Corey) submitted an affidavit that was, if not perjurious, completely misleading. She violated all kinds of rules of the profession, and her conduct bordered on criminal conduct. [...] Halfway through the trial she realized she wasn't going to get a second degree murder verdict, so she asked for a compromised verdict, for manslaughter. And then, she went even further and said that she was going to charge him with child abuse and felony murder. That was such a stretch that it goes beyond anything professionally responsible. She was among the most irresponsible prosecutors I've seen in 50 years of litigating cases, and believe me, I've seen good prosecutors, bad prosecutors, but rarely have I seen one as bad as this prosecutor."

Even on the slim chance of conviction, the Brady violations, which is why half of the prosecution witnesses were lawyered up, would have overturned the conviction because those violations denied Zimmerman a fair trial.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

40. Zimmerman...

...did 3 things: pursue someone, participate in a physical altercation and shoot someone. These have nothing to do with how the FBI "counts crimes". If the (apparently inept) prosecution, felt they had the evidence to convict on stalking/unlawful pursuit they probably would have. Assuming it was Zimmerman who threw the first punch and they had the evidence to prove that, (which they didn't) Zimmerman would have (probably) been found guilty of 2nd degree murder.

A single assault will get a single charge. If they can prove you're guilty of assault and the victim dies they charge you with murder/manslaughter. They don't charge you with murder, aggravated assault, assault with a deadly weapon, attempted murder and aggravated battery.

Double jeopardy is in the BoR for a reason.

[gejohnston]

41. actually, it would be manslaugher

for second degree murder, they would have to prove ill will and evil intent. They weren't inept. Ethically challenged, but not inept. They simply had no evidence to work with.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

42. for me at least...

...charging someone and then proceeding to trial without enough evidence = inept.

[gejohnston]

43. If it were anyone but Angela Corey, I would agree

but she needed the case for re election. He always over charges and is well known in Florida for her politicizing and ethical lapses. The Seminole County DA had a grand jury going full blast, but pundits did not like that answer, and Rick Scott had a image to uphold (or he feared massive protests) so he picked the least ethical DA as a special prosecutor. She shut down the grand jury and did her own thing.
Had it not been for the political pressure, the grand jury may have found enough evidence to convict him in a fair trial with an ethical DA. Possible, but not probable
What happened is he beat an unfair trial (when you count the reversible errors and withholding evidence issues).


http://jonathanturley.org/2013/07/15/angela-corey-fires-whistleblower-who-revealed-the-withholding-of-evidence-from-zimmerman-defense/

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

44. unfit, unsuitable, incapable...

...or just not able to get the job done. Lead, follow or get out the grand jury's way. Which ever, didn't do the job.

Just another useless tax vacuum.

[jimmy the one]

46. crime counting

dscntnt: Zimmerman... did 3 things: pursue someone, participate in a physical altercation and shoot someone. These have nothing to do with how the FBI "counts crimes".

I contrasted the fbi hierarchy rule with police on scene reports to posit a possible explanation why the defense proferred 'aggravated assault' as an option.
The only thing the fbi is (generally) interested in would be the shooting, since it is the only crime the fbi will include on their ucr (uniform crime reports). To include 'lesser crimes' (accd'g to hierarchy rule) would inflate national crime statistics at capricious whims of victims.
Actually tho, not sure how justifiable homs get treated, since there should be an 'provoking/offsetting' crime to justify the, justifiable homicide.

.. A single assault will get a single charge. If they can prove you're guilty of assault and the victim dies they charge you with murder/manslaughter. They don't charge you with murder, aggravated assault, assault with a deadly weapon, attempted murder and aggravated battery.

Did you not even read the links where the prosecution tried to do exactly that? & the judge was considering whether to allow the combined aggravated assault, murder (degrees), & child abuse? Explain that & quit repeating yourself.
The fbi hierarchy rule would classify martin as either a murder victim or justifiable homicide victim, the latter being de facto & de jure the case now.
But police reports contain what actually transpired to the best of their ability, like if he was robbed prior to death, beaten badly, car stolen, & these can be added sometimes at the trial so as to add length to the sentence. Based on on scene police reports.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

49. re: "Explain that..."

I think for me to explain so you understand, I'd have to huff glue for about a week.

[beevul]

47. So you're saying you said something which wasn't true...deliberately?

First you say "The ALL WHITE jury..."

Then when called on it, you say "I was aware there were 5 of 6 white non hispanic, & I think the other puerto rican...".


So you're saying you said something which wasn't true...deliberately? One can only speculate why...



Have a nice day.

[COLGATE4]

28. And that 'opinion' is based on what law?

[spin]

52. You do not have to be a Zimmerman supporter to understand the jury rendered the correct .....

verdict based on the evidence.

If there had been witnesses that would have testified on the beginning of the altercation or video tape of the incident, the jury's decision could have been "guilty."

The prosecution failed to present a convincing case. Consequently the jury followed our legal system and argued if Zimmerman was guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.

The jury ruled that Zimmerman was not guilty which is not the same as innocent.

I might be highly upset if I believed we should throw out the basis of our criminal law and replace judges and juries with TV commentators and editorial writers for newspapers. But I feel that while are current system is far from perfect it's far better than trial by the media.

[gejohnston]

53. possible

when you look at 2(a)
http://www.leg.state.fl.us/statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&Search_String=&URL=0700-0799/0776/Sections/0776.041.html


When interrogated by the cops, the detective lied and told Zimmerman that someone did video tape the whole thing (it is an interrogation technique called a "challenge" interview). The cop said Zimmerman was relieved and glad to know that. Once again, the cop was a prosecution witness speaking under oath. It was fun watching the prosecutors try to impeach their own witness, and try to have his testimony stricken.
As Talk Left reported:

Yesterday, officer Serino testified that he believed George Zimmerman was telling the truth. Both he and Singleton testified the inconsistencies in Zimmerman's statements to them the week of the shooting and during his re-enactment of the event did not amount to significant differences. Serino and Singleton both testified to a point I have made here repeatedly: No one recounts an event the exact same way every time. If they did, it would be suspect. Variations are not the equivalent of significant differences.

Serino testified yesterday that when he told Zimmerman that Martin may have videotaped the encounter (a police ruse to get him to think he wouldn't get away with lying), Zimmerman's response was, "Thank G-d, I was hoping someone had videotaped it." It was after this that Serino said he thought GZ was telling the truth.

http://www.talkleft.com/story/2013/7/2/192138/6469/Colo_News/George-Zimmerman-Trial-Walking-Back-the-Damage

Even if Zimmerman started it, 2 a and b could apply
776.041 Use of force by aggressor.—The justification described in the preceding sections of this chapter is not available to a person who:
(1) Is attempting to commit, committing, or escaping after the commission of, a forcible felony; or

(2) Initially provokes the use of force against himself or herself, unless:
(a) Such force is so great that the person reasonably believes that he or she is in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm and that he or she has exhausted every reasonable means to escape such danger other than the use of force which is likely to cause death or great bodily harm to the assailant; or
(b) In good faith, the person withdraws from physical contact with the assailant and indicates clearly to the assailant that he or she desires to withdraw and terminate the use of force, but the assailant continues or resumes the use of force.

Attempting to nonviolently resist or escape and calling for help for 45 seconds while getting a "ground and pound" might qualify under that paragraph. Given the prosecutor's misconduct, the Brady violations, and reversible errors Judge Nelson made, any conviction would be rendered moot on appeal.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

20. So, if you're anti-cop and anti-citizen self defense

what do you do about actual violent criminals?

[Cooley Hurd]

22. I'm pro-cop when they're pre-screened and trained properly...

...and pro-self-defense only when the "victim" isn't provoking the attack to begin with.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

26. Is there any municipality represented by this group where the cops AREN'T screened and trained?

Not that screening and training would impact their opinion of No Duty to Retreat laws. And a single verdict shouldn't be used to force good people into a Duty to Retreat in the face of a violent attacker.

[Cooley Hurd]

27. Apparently, there are many, since you hear of multiple, major cop fuckups every day...

[Nuclear Unicorn]

29. I'm aware of these travesties, which is why I support people being allowed to defend themselves

and not being subjected to potential police abuse over something like absurd duty to retreat laws.

[gejohnston]

33. problem is,

there is no evidence that the "victim" provoked it. All of that is speculation by pundits and politicians, which count for zip in court.

[Dawson Leery]

5. Let's hear it for Florida!

[gejohnston]

7. and the other 30 SYG states?

like California that allows the defender to counter attack?

[jimmy the one]

45. 90% all hispanics considered white

gejohnston: First off, there is no such thing as a "white Hispanic" unless you are saying his ancestor is northern Spain or Cuban. The media created it..

wiki: FLORIDA: 2010 US Census: 75.0% White American (57.9% Non-Hispanic White, 17.1% White Hispanic)
CALIFORNIA 74.0% White (39.7% Non-Hispanic White, 34.3% Hispanic White).. 38.1% Hispanic/Latino

Ergo, in california 38.1% are hispanic/latino, & 34.3% are white hispanic. Whether mestizo, creole, or mulatto is somewhat different.
wiki: 2010 Census, 50.5 million Americans listed themselves as ethnically Hispanic or Latino. Of those, 53.0% (26.7 million) self-identified as racially white. The remaining respondents listed their races as: Some other race 36.7%, Two or more races (multiracial) 6.0%, Black or African American 2.5%, American Indian/Native 1.4%.. respondents in the "Some other race" category are reclassified as white by the Census Bureau,. This means that more than 90% of all Hispanic or Latino Americans are counted as "white"..

johnston: Sorry, the rest of the stuff is your made up opinion

Fer chryce sake more than half what you wrote is your own made up opinion.
the delusionary johnston: An all black jury in Jacksonville would have come to the same conclusion {zimmerman not guilty}.

You're utterly delusionary. At best for the defense they'd've hung, unless you rolled snake eyes three times in a row at voir dire & ended up with 6 clarence thomases..

johnston: There was not evidence to disprove self defense, nor prove any of the claims..

That's how the 3 balking jurors ended up being swayed after they deliberated more, sure, but those very 3 jurors on the first vote thought zimm GUILTY, & ON WHAT BASIS other than the EVIDENCE produced by the prosecution did those 3 think zimm guilty? A coin flip? You say the jury found no evidence, well explain how, clarence darrow, 3 jurors first thought zimm guilty? if not for the evidence they saw at trial? Yeah I've been on a grand jury & a petit one too. You're doing another fine job of producing rightwing talking points on this.

[gejohnston]

48. wrong as usual.

can you name one basic fact from the trial? For example, what did Zimmerman's African American neighbor say? What did the operator testify to? What happened to the State's rebuttal witnesses, and why did Bernie de la Rionda scratch them? There was supposed to be three of them. One was asked one question, he answered "didn't happen" before the defense objected. Can you explain why?

gejohnston: First off, there is no such thing as a "white Hispanic" unless you are saying his ancestor is northern Spain or Cuban. The media created it..

wiki: FLORIDA: 2010 US Census: 75.0% White American (57.9% Non-Hispanic White, 17.1% White Hispanic)
CALIFORNIA 74.0% White (39.7% Non-Hispanic White, 34.3% Hispanic White).. 38.1% Hispanic/Latino

Ergo, in california 38.1% are hispanic/latino, & 34.3% are white hispanic. Whether mestizo, creole, or mulatto is somewhat different.
wiki: 2010 Census, 50.5 million Americans listed themselves as ethnically Hispanic or Latino. Of those, 53.0% (26.7 million) self-identified as racially white. The remaining respondents listed their races as: Some other race 36.7%, Two or more races (multiracial) 6.0%, Black or African American 2.5%, American Indian/Native 1.4%.. respondents in the "Some other race" category are reclassified as white by the Census Bureau,. This means that more than 90% of all Hispanic or Latino Americans are counted as "white"..

Which has nothing to do with Zimmerman since his mother is South American Indian and black. He is not a "white Hispanic".

johnston: Sorry, the rest of the stuff is your made up opinion

Fer chryce sake more than half what you wrote is your own made up opinion.
the delusionary johnston: An all black jury in Jacksonville would have come to the same conclusion {zimmerman not guilty}.

You're utterly delusionary. At best for the defense they'd've hung, unless you rolled snake eyes three times in a row at voir dire & ended up with 6 clarence thomases..

Are you saying that whites are incapable of being objective based on the evidence, or lack of, or are you saying blacks can't? Either way, it sounds racist. Do you think an all black jury would vote guilty just because John Guy said "ignore the evidence and follow your heart?" Seriously?

That's how the 3 balking jurors ended up being swayed after they deliberated more, sure, but those very 3 jurors on the first vote thought zimm GUILTY, & ON WHAT BASIS other than the EVIDENCE produced by the prosecution did those 3 think zimm guilty? A coin flip? You say the jury found no evidence, well explain how, clarence darrow, 3 jurors first thought zimm guilty? if not for the evidence they saw at trial? Yeah I've been on a grand jury & a petit one too. You're doing another fine job of producing rightwing talking points on this.

I don't know, first impression from John Guy's appeal to emotion. First, evidence of the jurors saying that. First impressions is one thing, looking at the evidence themselves is another. Once they went over the evidence, those three were swayed by the evidence and the jury instructions. Grand juries are not trial juries, not at all the same thing. In a grand jury, the State doesn't have to prove anything other than convince you that he or she has enough evidence to charge. BTW, the alternate juror, an African American guy, said he would have voted to acquit. Right wing talking points? Like these
http://www.talkleft.com/search?string=george+zimmerman
http://jonathanturley.org/2013/07/14/separating-law-and-legend-in-the-zimmerman-verdict/
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/alan-dershowitz/new-forensic-evidence-is-_b_1527972.html
Strange, none of them are conservative let alone right wing. Most Christians admit evolution is real and that the Earth is more than a couple of billion years old, but they are still Christians.
At what point did the State disprove self defense? When in their closing arguments did John Guy or Bernie de la Rionda say they proved something? When did they utter the words "we proved"?

[ileus]

12. As should everyone who cares about safety.

[jimmy the one]

24. how many is unanimous?

{Fla Sheriff's Asso} “The right to self-defense is well-established in law. The Florida Sheriffs confirmed this position by voting unanimously, at the 2013 Florida Sheriffs Assoc Summer Conf, to support the Stand Your Ground law as it is currently written.”

I thought it unlikely all the sheriffs in florida would unanimously support something as contentious as syg laws when it breaks about parity nationwide. Here's what I found:

wiki: The Florida Sheriffs Association (FSA) is a non-profit professional association of Florida’s 67 elected Sheriffs, along with approximately 3,500 business leaders and 70,000 citizens throughout the state.. FSA is managed by a 17-member elected board of directors, all of whom are Sheriffs. The board consists of 12 directors and 5 officers. To insure statewide representation, active member Sheriffs in each of 4 divided districts nominate three directors from each district to comprise the 12-member board. The 5 officers are nominated from any of the 4 districts.

67 - 0 voting is pretty steep, I'm wondering if it wasn't just the 17 board members who voted unanimously (with possible abstentions so no opposition); strong enough support for syg, but likely not representative across the state.
.. Another interesting florida bill, which died in some committee, misleading since most those bills in the link 'died in some committee' including syg bills; allowed for warning shots:

by Combee .. Defense of Life, Home, & Property: Provides that defensive display of weapon or firearm, including discharge of firearm for purpose of warning shot, does not constitute use of deadly force; provides immunity from prosecution for persons acting in defense of life, home, & property from violent attack or threat of violent attack through certain displays of or uses of force; http://public.lobbytools.com/index.cfm?type=bills&id=36077&utm_source=publisher&utm_medium=js&utm_campaign=content_share

broader link: http://www.flsheriffs.org/legislative/legislative_update/

[shadowrider]

34. HellifIknow. Why don't you ask them. Click the "contact" button on the linked article. n/t

[GreenStormCloud]

54. The article says "Florida Sheriffs" voted.

It doesn't say board of directors, or represenatives, or anything like that. So it appears that the vote was 67-0.

[GreenStormCloud]

55. The vote was 57-0. A few of the sheriffs were not in attendance.

http://www.news-press.com/viewart/20130809/NEWS0120/130809020/Florida-sheriffs-Keep-Stand-Your-Ground-written

Is that strong enough for you? Your speculation that it was only the board members fails completely.

[jimmy the one]

56. good job clarifying, but....

GSC: It doesn't say board of directors, or represenatives, or anything like that. So it appears that the vote was 67-0... Is that strong enough for you? Your speculation that it was only the board members fails completely

As if it would've been the first time a group within a group was labeled as the group.
My speculation didn't fail completely, since 'only' 57 voted, not 67. Your speculation failed as much as mine under same parameters, eh? .. thanks for clearing it up tho, done good, it's been keeping me up nights.

what I actually wrote: "I thought it unlikely all the sheriffs in florida would unanimously support something as contentious as syg laws when it breaks about parity nationwide. Here's what I found..(link).. 67 - 0 voting is pretty steep, I'm wondering if it wasn't just the 17 board members who voted unanimously (with possible abstentions so no opposition); strong enough support for syg, but likely not representative across the state."

Dunno about the other 10 sheriffs, could indeed be 'unanimous', but speculation is far from assertation, mr cloud.
As far as legislators, makes my point, tho the effort does indeed appear a forlorn hope, in florida: 8/2013: 28 lawmakers have filed petitions with Fla Dept of State requesting a special session on the law. The proposal is an effort to circumvent the opposition to a special session by Gov. Rick Scott and legislative leadership. If 32 legislators make the request, all 160 legislators from both Republican-dominated chambers would be polled. A special session would be held only if three-fifths of the members supported the idea.

By you GSC, should those 28 democrat lawmakers sit down & shut up? Which is more representative of floridians feelings on syg, the legislature or the fla sheriff's vote?

[GreenStormCloud]

57. I was off by 10, you were off by 40.

And I was off due to some absent members, you were off by going to the board instead of the members. I would say that your failure was much more severe, while mine was minor.

The 28 are merely grandstanding, thereby getting a bit of spotlight, but accomplishing nothing. Since both the legislature and the sheriffs are elected then I would think that both represent Floridian's feelings on the matter.

There are over 30 states with SYG and I am not aware of any serious move to repeal it in any state. SYG is here to stay.