Posted on 08/09/2012 9:35:57 AM PDT by 2ndDivisionVet
George Zimmerman, accused in the shooting death of Florida teen Trayvon Martin, could be cleared of a second-degree murder charge if a judge rules in his favor in a new "Stand Your Ground" hearing.
Zimmerman's defense attorney Mark O'Mara announced on his website Thursday that there will be a "Stand Your Ground" hearing based on his client's claim he shot the unarmed teen in self-defense. A finding in Zimmerman's favor would end the criminal case against him, as well as immunizing him from civil action.
"Now that the State has released the majority of their discovery, the defense asserts that there is clear support for a strong claim of self-defense. Consistent with this claim of self-defense, there will be a 'Stand Your Ground' hearing," said O'Mara in a statement....
(Excerpt) Read more at foxnews.com ...
What if the riots prevent many Americans from voting? It’s a question that has to be asked given the ‘Justice’ Dept.’s capitulation to the New Black Panther Party’s voter intimidation.
Me too. I see no reason for him to accept the order. I think there is plenty of time to petition for a writ of prohibition, since the matters before the court are "in motion" with no action to take place before October. There is probably a 30 day or so time deadline for filing the "appeal" to the adverse order.
I don't think Lester will go out of his way to show impartiality. /s Meaning I think he;ll be even less likely to accept Zimmerman's statements as truthful now, than he would have been if the Motion for Recusal had not been filed. I think Lester is the type to hold a grudge.
You need to be careful. In Colorado we have the "Make My Day" law, similar to Castle Doctrine. It will shield you if you defend yourself in your home and fear for your life or personal harm. If you attempt to protect your property outside you house you can and will be prosecuted.
http://www.thedenverchannel.com/news/24231446/detail.html
The vast right wing conspiracy of right wing legislation... not like the left has PC as a way to impose moral high grounds and sinister “higher powers” of democratic psychological blackmail to bow to.
Ohio has the most prosecution friendly legal standard against self defense, too. In every other state, the prosecution must prove (at trial), beyond a reasonable doubt, that the action was not self defense. In Ohio, the prosecution only has to show it was less likely self defense - preponderance of the evidence, running in the prosecution's favor.
My sentiments exactly
they must have figured they could not get this thing to trial before the election so if they can get it thrown out sometime in October let the cities burn and gin up the black voters.
I would prefer they call it self-defense, the left is turning SYG into a murder permit and making it sound like a strange and radical law suddenly created out of thin air.
Thank you.
<>Did you see that the parents applied to the crime victim’ fund in FL?<>
Yep — it was applied for on behalf of the mother Sybrina who wasn’t even taking care of him, and whose salary at her housing agency job is about $68,000/yr, on top of her take from the Trayvon Martin Trust set up to go right into the Martin family pockets.
This is the form that would have to have been filled out for her to get the money from the fund. Note section 9:
http://myfloridalegal.com/webfiles.nsf/WF/KGRG-8E4KRV/$file/VictimsCompApp-Eng.pdf
Supposedly this application had been approved at the AG office way back in March. How is that possible without the person filling out this form not to have committed perjury???
If the state appeals a grant of immunity, the standard of review is reversed, and is what I said in my previous post to you - the appellate court must find clear and convincing evidence that the use of force was not justified, in order to push the case through to a trial.
Please explain why it doesn't apply?
I think it does and so does his Lawyer.
Well, maybe not exactly. Ohio isn't Texas, we still can't use deadly force to stop a property crime.
I believe what we can do is (for example) to intervene if somebody's trying to steal your car in your driveway, and can only resort to deadly force if the perp subsequently attacks (with the equivalent of a deadly force provocation) you when you are on your property. So if the guy sees the light, and desists, no deadly force, obviously.
Thanks for the information, I can see that this is something I need to understand a bit better,
I worded my previous post incorrectly (or at least misleading). You are both correct.
From my earlier post the Castle Doctrine does not allow you to “defend your property with deadly force” as I stated.
What I meant and did explain correctly is that you can intervene to stop a crime on your property per the castle doctrine. You can defend your property. If your intervention causes the perp to escalate the situation in which you are in danger of great bodily harm or death, you can defend yourself with lethal force if necessary.
The distinction here is that you may legally approach the perps that are breaking into your truck in the driveway while armed with the intent of stopping the theft. If they pull a gun or attack you instead of fleeing, you may defend yourself.
Yeah, I think that clarifies it pretty well, I agree.
Understood
Sorry, I thought you said Nixon ‘68. My mistake.
When O'Mara says "Stand your Ground" applies, he means that Zimmerman is entitled to assert the immunity statute that is bundled in the set of statutes that, as a group, is referred to as "Stand your Ground."
What, they lost revenue on the kids loot from B & E’s and marijuana sales??
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.