Please Donate Today, & Consider Donating Monthly!
Generous FReeper Sponsors are donating $10 for every New Monthly Donor & $1-A-DAY DONOR!
Posted on 07/11/2013 5:31:39 PM PDT by Talisker
Okay, so let's say what happened to Zimmerman happened to a cop. The cop was not trying to enforce the law, he was not using professional training to surveil a suspect (I know Zimmerman was, but bear with me here, it's a thought experiment). The only thing the cop was doing was getting jumped, under exactly the same circumstances as Zimmerman was jumped.
It seems to me that the ONLY thing the cop would have to say is that he feared for his life. Right? There would be no inquiry as to whether the cop's head got beat into the pavement enough, or if it hit the grass instead. There would be no discussion about whether the cop was enough of a wimp to have to use his gun. Nothing. The only question would be whether the cop feared for his life – or even if he feared that he was going to suffer bodily injury, or even if he just was physically attacked at all. If so, then the shooting would be deemed justified, end of subject.
Right?
So why ddoesn't the same legal standard apply to a non-cop? In a case of purely self-defense for a cop, subtracting police work, what is left? The right of a human being to defend himself from injury, harm or death, right? How are these actual facts different for a non-cop under the law? What is the justification for using a different standard for basic self-defense, and why can't Zimmerman's lawyer simply say that in an identical situation, a cop would be ruled as using jusitfiable lethal force, therefore as Zimmerman did the same, he is similiarly not guilty.
And please, no cynical comments about "how the world really works." This is a legal question - I'm looking for a legal explanation of exactly why this defense argument wouldn't be allowed by a judge.
In short, why aren't the purely self-defense standards and thresholds equal for both cops and non-cops?
They always have an inquiry when a cop shoots someone.
Right. It is the same legal standard, but as we see here in Florida, not the same in practice.
Cop would have had a lay down. Lol
it is the difference between an amateur and a professional
A cop is assumed to have received more training than a civilian.
A cop is expected to know non-lethal means of ending a confrontation, and it is further assumed that in order for him to resort to lethal means he (or she) would have exhausted those means.
A cop will also expect a close investigation of the facts of the case, and that is expected to temper his response.
That’s the theory.
“They always have an inquiry when a cop shoots someone.”
And they always find it “justified.” Why? because they are all “trained” and they are, after all, above the law.
Henry Mark Holzer
Zimmerman: Talk of manslaughter is uninformed
Tonight I finally had enough. All these moronic talking heads on TV talking about how if George Zimmerman is not acquitted of murder he could be convicted of manslaughter as a lesser included offense. Stupid, stupid, stupid.
Under Florida law manslaughter is
“(1) The killing of a human being by the act, procurement, or culpable negligence of another, without lawful justification according to the provisions of chapter 776 and in cases in which such killing shall not be excusable homicide or murder, according to the provisions of this chapter, is manslaughter, a felony of the second degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084. § 782.07(1), Fla. Stat. (2005).” (My emphasis.)
This is the Florida statute on lesser included offenses:
Fla. R. Crim. P. Rule 3.510
Rule 3.510. Determination of Attempts and Lesser Included Offenses
“On an indictment or information on which the defendant is to be tried for any offense the jury may convict the defendant of: * * * (b) any offense that as a matter of law is a necessarily included offense or a lesser included offense of the offense charged in the indictment or information and is supported by the evidence. The judge shall not instruct on any lesser included offense as to which there is no evidence. (My emphasis.)
There is no such evidence of manslaughter. None. To the contrary, there is overwhelming evidence of self-defense.
If the judge charges manslaughter over defenses objections, she will be reversed on appeal.
If she does not charge manslaughter, George Zimmerman will likely be acquitted because the jury will have murder or nothing.
If Zimmerman is convicted, because there is not a shred of evidence to satisfy the Florida murder second degree statute the appellate court will reverse. Indeed, the gutless judge lacked the courage to dismiss the case after the People rested because of the lack of evidence for murder II.
Talk of manslaughter is nonsense.
No, you are right. It is the same test.
The cops interviewed George several times and released him every time. No charges. The Police chief was fired. The local prosecutors were relieved, The President got his azz involved.
George’s attorneys knew going in that the deck was stacked. That is why they felt the need to DIS-prove all elements of the crime. Not just create a reasonable doubt, but to show they were bogus.
So the unethical prosecutors made up new make believe elements, which the Judge has gone along with with her winks and nods.
And her acts of disdain, impatience and rudeness (hostility) send a stong message to jury that George and his lawyers are Satan incarnate.
This case should never have been brought. George is Alice in Wonderland.
Then even if George wins, the original Judge forced proscutors to charge George AND his wife with perjury for failure to disclose the defense fund when they had the bond hearing. So these guys are toast either way.
Obama is loving it. win-win-win-win for him
Plus he gets his race war as a cherry on top
Actually, Zimmerman had the same legal standard and was cleared until some FL DNC operative called the Obama Admin. who then called Al Sharpton, and everything went out the window
According to the U.S. Supreme Court in Garner v. Tennessee, 471 U.S. 1 (1985), a private citizen has broader authority to use deadly force under the common law than law enforcement officers.
Because the lives of the King’s Men are more valuable than the lives of mere peasants like George Zimmerman.
And that’s the practice...
Interesting. I'll make note of it to give it a look.
And the cop gets a paid vacation, and time to get his story straight...
Yes, they would
Go ask Miami cops who have to deal with Blacks. Hispanic Miami cops have been charged with murder for because black criminal suspects have died during arrest and custody.
There have been a few riots over the years with blacks rioting because black suspects died while in custody....and the cops who were charged with murder get acquitted
Riots in Florida from blacks is nothing new. I can remember Orlando being put under curfew in 1980 because of fear that Miami riots would fester in Orlando
Blacks rioting and trying to lynch innocents is nothing new in Florida. Until the Black community is forced to stop acting like feral animals and accept some responsibility...things will never change. Just look at every Black Racist commenting about this case on TV
Thanks to everyone for the comments.
And thanks for this SCOTUS ruling. It makes sense - more training should mean more non-lethal alternative are available. Less training should mean less non-lethal alternatives are available.
In actual fact, this is true. It's too bad that's it's not also true in actual law, versus theoretical law.
This is true in Florida. The officer would have been put before a grand jury. That is what should have happened in Zimmerman’s case.
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.