Posted on 04/13/2012 6:47:55 AM PDT by marktwain
George Zimmerman can ask to have the second-degree-murder charge against him dropped without having to stand trial in the death of Trayvon Martin.
Two years ago, the Florida Supreme Court ruled that anyone claiming "stand your ground" immunity in a death, battery or assault case can request a hearing on the evidence.
The hearing allows the prosecution and defense to argue all the elements of self-defense in the case evidence. To get charges dismissed, the accused must convince the judge that a reasonable person would believe that using deadly force or the threat of deadly force was the only way to protect his or her life, court records show.
The state's "stand your ground" law passed in 2005 says:
"A person who is not engaged in an unlawful activity and who is attacked in any other place where he or she has a right to be has no duty to retreat and has the right to stand his or her ground and meet force with force, including deadly force if he or she reasonably believes it is necessary to do so to prevent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the commission of a forcible felony."
----------------------cut----------------------
Berman said he thinks Mark O'Mara, Zimmerman's lawyer, will request an evidentiary hearing as part of his defense of Zimmerman's "stand your ground" claim.
(Excerpt) Read more at articles.orlandosentinel.com ...
I used wikipedia, but dozens of sources say the same thing. This is what the Martin attorney is telling the press that she told him. The next step was she talked to Angela Corey (also widely reported), and the final step is her story was mentioned in the affidavit, which was released yesterday. Honestly, there is no contention whatysoever over this - her statements have been widely reported, and repeated often by the Martin attorney. THe wikipedia bit is a direct quote from the Martin attorney.
Thanks.
You’re just about the first support I’ve gotten on this position.
If we were to take the Stand Your Ground absolutists literally, duelists would be covered. Hey, they’re in a place where they have a legal right to be and someone is trying to kill them! So whoever wins, he’s just defending himself.
A more reasonable interpretation, IMO. Each duelist is guilty of attempted murder. The loser can’t be prosecuted because he’s dead. The survivor should be charged and convicted of murder.
In a great many confrontations there is no obvious and inarguable perpetrator and victim. There are two guys both being Mr. Tough Guy, neither backs down and one winds up dead. Should the survivor, whoever he is, automatically be allowed to plead self-defense? Not in my book.
The cases the SYG law was really intended to address are probably less common than the one outlined above. Centuries of common law added a duty to retreat for a reason. It made clear who was the aggressor and who was the defender.
If it was really ugly in there, I wouldn't drop by. Their thank you to me was not solicited. They are not disliking conservatives or republicans in there thanks to me and other freepers who drop by there. Someone needs to be diplomatic and besides, this is going to be a long slog. I was on drugs for a toothache so you caught me again, TigersEye.
Police Chief “temporarily stepped down”.
lacrew said "And her statement is mentioned in the charging affidavit." I guess you won't believe the charging affidavit either.
I am not on Facebook, have no intention of ever being on Facebook and had no intention of going to Trayvon’s Facebook page. I see no purpose in doing that.
You’re right, he’s wrong. ;-)
Another little item rarely reported is that the Stand Your Ground law provides that a person acting in self-defense is accorded immunity from arrest, prosecution or civil liability. That’s immunity not just a presumption at trial.
Thus its the state that has the burden of preponderance of the evidence at a motion to dismiss and at trial “beyond a reasonable doubt” to overcome the defendant’s immunity.
To arrest however all they need is probable cause to believe that self-defense aspects do not apply eg bad guy was the aggressor, had no fear for life or limb, etc.
There will be a motion to dismiss because its a free “shot” at dismissal - worst case you go to trial maybe after an appeal or two and the news has long moved on to the next “outrage”.
Just so you know. ;-)
It's pretty disappointing that you pretend to know the facts of the case before they have been made public and have pre-judged Zimmerman.
Centuries of common law added a duty to retreat for a reason. It made clear who was the aggressor and who was the defender.
marktwain replies:
I think that the above statement is incorrect. I believe that the “duty to retreat” is a relatively recent addition, probably in the last 75 years. Certainly in Brown v. United States in 1921 the Supreme Court held that there was not a duty to retreat. The decision was made in part based on Beard v. United States in 1895.
http://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/158/550/case.html
You are right, that never even occurred to me that they would be different judges...good point!
My point was that he did not dial 911, therefore, did not tie up that line. He had access to the dispatcher because he was a volunteer at the community he lived in.
A common misperception of the public and unfortunately many conservatives in particular is that there is a black and white statute someplace that covers everything. That is wrong.
The Florida trial court will accept the clear and convincing burden and deny the motion.
On the other hand should the court go for a preponderance standard the motion will still be denied but it will telegraph the courts predisposition to yield to public pressure in this matter.
In a Minnesota case, State v. Gardner (1905), where a man was acquitted for killing another man who attempted to kill him with a rifle, Judge Jaggard stated:
“The doctrine of “retreat to the wall” had its origin [in Medieval England] before the general introduction of guns. Justice demands that its application have due regard to the general use of and to the type of firearms. It would be good sense for the law to require, in many cases, an attempt to escape from a hand to hand encounter with fists, clubs and even knives as a justification for killing in self-defense; while it would be rank folly to require [an attempt to escape] when experienced persons, armed with repeating rifles, face each other in an open space, removed from shelter, with intent to kill or cause great bodily harm[4]”
As I have said, I do not claim the doctrine has always been appropriately applied, only that the principle is a wise one to consider when deciding when a person should be allowed to claim self-defense.
We’ve all seen the old westerns where the gunslinger bullies the farmer into “going for his gun” and then kills him. Should he then be allowed to claim self-defense? Not in my book.
Just to be clear, I am not opposed to the actual Florida SYG law, just the way some have portrayed it.
I think SYG is unlikely to apply in the Zimmerman case. It is likely one or the other of the parties, probably though not certainly Martin, precipitated the fight by a felonious assault. That party, whichever it was, cannot under Florida SYG, claim self-defense if he kills the other person during the fight. Which is as it should be.
If Martin attacked Zimmerman, the most likely explanation for the “known” facts, then SYG doesn’t apply because Zimmerman would have had no chance to retreat safely anyway. His actions would have been self-defense before SYG was passed, thus SYG isn’t relevant to the case.
There are alternative scenarios under which SYG might apply, but they don’t appear to be very likely.
Cheburashka,
This youtube video is of an ABC news segment, with actual audio from the girlfriend:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YIuQ3VeSkTs&feature=related
I hope it passes muster.
Cheburashka,
This youtube video is of an ABC news segment, with actual audio from the girlfriend:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YIuQ3VeSkTs&feature=related
I hope it passes muster.
Transcript of George Zimmerman's Charge Affidavit of Second Degree Murder
It doesn't say much about what Trayvon's girlfriend has said.
"During this time, Martin was on the phone with a friend and described to her what was happening. The witness advised that Martin was scared because he was being followed through the complex by an unknown male and didn't know why."
That is all regarding her testimony in the affidavit. One thing that is glaringly clear is that there is nothing whatsoever in the charging affidavit to establish probable cause for arrest on any charge.
if a fatal show is fired. Assiming it went upwards from lower front to out of upper back, where does the body go? is the person still alive enough to stagger away?
This youtube video is of an ABC news segment, with actual audio from the girlfriend:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YIuQ3VeSkTs&feature=related
I hope it passes muster.
I want to see what she says outside of situations controlled by some lawyer who works for the Martins, and I want her cross-examined too. Until then, as far as I'm concerned she's not really talking, and I haven't heard what she has to say.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.