IWETHEY v. 0.3.0 | TODO
1,095 registered users | 0 active users | 0 LpH | Statistics
Login | Create New User
IWETHEY Banner

Welcome to IWETHEY!

New Wasn't a "stand your ground" defense.
But the judge did use that language in the jury instructions(!)

TNC has a good column this morning - http://www.theatlant...n-justice/277782/

In trying to assess the the killing of Trayvon Martin by George Zimmerman, two seemingly conflicted truths emerge for me. The first is that is that based on the case presented by the state, and based on Florida law, George Zimmerman should not have been convicted of second degree murder or manslaughter. The second is that the killing of Trayvon Martin is a profound injustice. In examining the first conclusion, I think it's important to take a very hard look at the qualifications allowed for aggressors by Florida's self-defense statute:

[...]

There has been a lot of complaint that "stand your ground" has nothing to do with this case. That contention is contravened by the fact that it is cited in the instructions to the jury. Taken together, it is important to understand that it is not enough for the state to prove that George Zimmerman acted unwisely in following Martin. Under Florida law, George Zimmerman had no responsibility to--at any point--retreat. The state must prove that Zimmerman had no reasonable fear for his life. Moreover, it is not enough for the jury to find Zimmerman's story fishy. Again the jury instructions:


That law is so messed up...

[edit:] Just refound this comment at DeLong's blog - http://delong.typepa...401901e428fa3970b

[...]

I got curious and read the jury instructions Friday night and, I was wrong. In Florida, if self-defense is even suggested, it’s the states obligation to prove it’s absence beyond a reasonable doubt(!). That’s crazy. But ‘not guilty’ was certainly a reasonable result in this case. As I told in friend in Tampa today though, if you’re ever in a heated argument with anyone, and you’re pretty sure there aren’t any witnesses, it’s always best to kill the other person. They can’t testify, you don’t have to testify, no one else has any idea what happened; how can the state ever prove beyond a doubt is wasn’t self-defense? Holy crap! What kind of system is that?


Yup. :-(

There are other good comments there, too.

Cheers,
Scott.
Expand Edited by Another Scott July 15, 2013, 08:09:25 AM EDT
New Wow, that law *is* worse than I thought
The deLong commenter is wrong, though. The state has *always* had to prove their case against a self-defense claim.

The problem, as TNC points out, is that it used to be enough to show that you initiated the confrontation: after that it's not "defense". Now you can start the fight and shoot it out if you're losing.

How can *any* deadly fight end in a conviction now?
--

Drew
Expand Edited by drook July 15, 2013, 08:45:16 AM EDT
New wrong, as noted in many places, brown was not discussed
by the prosecution at all. In florida you have no obligation to back away from a confrontation, unless you are the aggressor. In that case it is YOUR duty to back out of the situation. Stand your ground is a completely defensive law. In other words, if you get out of your truck after the cops tell you to leave it alone, you need to run away when the scary black man punches you, not shoot him.
Any opinions expressed by me are mine alone, posted from my home computer, on my own time as a free American and do not reflect the opinions of any person or company that I have had professional relations with in the past 58 years. meep
New Not wrong
The justification described in the preceding sections of this chapter is not available to a person who:

...

(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;

I highlighted the relevant parts.

You can't claim self-defense if you initiated it UNLESS ... well, damn near anything that comes after the "unless" makes this law bullshit. You can start a fight, and if you're losing bad enough you can shoot the other guy.
--

Drew
New At this point in the post-trial necropsy..
does anyone care to estimate the odds of the 'Stand Your Ground' ""law"" being bumped to the USSC--soon?--a bit later??

(Whereby we may get to plumb the depths of where the Gang-of-Five really stand? on a variety of visceral issues/outrages
--and maybe many other aspects of this isolated | simultaneously sanctimonious and crass, quarrelsome quintet.)



Law above fear, justice above law, mercy above justice, love above all.

HAH!! . . . in. your. dreams.
New Do you really think they'd hear it?
I don't think so. The majority on this court doesn't understand that an injudicious placement of an ellipsis can obliterate meaning (as in "... the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed"). Particularly when no heed is paid to stare decisis.

See, "Private Ownership of Firearms" is a new "right" this crowd of toddlers invented. And in so doing they said "States can regulate, but not deny [SIC] private firearm ownership rights." So, imnsho, this group of short-bus justices would decide that the "Stand Your Ground" law is a State matter.
New As they are 100.0% insulated from all inputs..
you are likely right--but there's always Chance--essentially all we can count on from this lot.
(When Sandra Day O'C retired, to take care of her very-ailing husband {laudatory, of course} ... and then he died very shortly thereafter:
I thought-out-loud: Let. no. good. deed. go. unPunished.)

We are the Punished. Until one or more of these suckers crashes his Mercedes.



Law above fear, justice above law, mercy above justice, love above all.
New staring meanly at us vs miller
doesn't do a thing for you. That would have been tossed on an appeal
Any opinions expressed by me are mine alone, posted from my home computer, on my own time as a free American and do not reflect the opinions of any person or company that I have had professional relations with in the past 58 years. meep
New Miller doesn't hold anymore.
In our Brave New World, whether or not the firearm in question "has some reasonable relationship" to the regulation of a State militia is irrelevant. Hell, we may as well adopt the NRA's version of Amendment Two and start it off, as they do, with an ellipsis.
     I think that maybe Bugs was right... - (Another Scott) - (25)
         Re: I think that maybe Bugs was right... - (folkert)
         Maybe he could enlarge that alteration a tad, say 4 more? - (Ashton) - (23)
             Betty makes a similar point. - (Another Scott) - (22)
                 Hmmm... - (hnick) - (21)
                     Some situations are more equal than others.... - (Another Scott)
                     One significant difference - (drook) - (19)
                         I note Movements afoot.. - (Ashton) - (5)
                             like I said in the beginning, doesnt matter - (boxley) - (1)
                                 Yup. They didn't want to prosecute GZ at all... :-( -NT - (Another Scott)
                             The petition link(s). - (Another Scott)
                             MoveOn got DDOSed - (Ashton) - (1)
                                 don't they cheer when people they dont like get ddoss'd? -NT - (boxley)
                         Re: One significant difference - (pwhysall)
                         Wasn't a "stand your ground" defense. - (Another Scott) - (8)
                             Wow, that law *is* worse than I thought - (drook)
                             wrong, as noted in many places, brown was not discussed - (boxley) - (6)
                                 Not wrong - (drook) - (5)
                                     At this point in the post-trial necropsy.. - (Ashton) - (4)
                                         Do you really think they'd hear it? - (mmoffitt) - (3)
                                             As they are 100.0% insulated from all inputs.. - (Ashton)
                                             staring meanly at us vs miller - (boxley) - (1)
                                                 Miller doesn't hold anymore. - (mmoffitt)
                         Re: One significant difference - (pwhysall) - (2)
                             Funny, but so very not-true - (drook) - (1)
                                 Thanks.. we can be sure that no Judge hands a printout - (Ashton)

I enjoy this motorcade and will recommend it to my niece.
114 ms