"There is no innocence, only degrees of guilt"

And "The plea of innocence is guilty of wasting my time."

Frazzled wrote:

Ma55ter_fett wrote:I think they said that the Florida "hold your ground" law will make it very difficult to prosecute in this case.

From what I gather, if you claim that it was self defence then you usually walk.

Thats inaccurate. You can't be in the furtherance of a crime at the time. Further, you still have to apply reasonable person standards. the law was put in place to prevent criminals and overzealous prosecutors from suing people who didn't flee as NY law requires.

Mother Jones wrote:Many readers have asked whether, given the 911 recordings, a case against Zimmerman would be easier than most homicides in which "self-defense" is cited by a defendant. In Florida, the answer probably is no: The courts' interpretation of the stand-your-ground law has been extremely broad—so broad that, to win an acquittal, a defendant doesn't even have to prove self-defense, only argue for it, while to win a conviction the prosecution has to prove that self-defense was impossible.

Numerous cases have set the precedent in Florida, with the courts arguing the law "does not require defendant to prove self-defense to any standard measuring assurance of truth, exigency, near certainty, or even mere probability; defendant's only burden is to offer facts from which his resort to force could have been reasonable." When a defendant claims self-defense, "the State has the burden of proving beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant did not act in self-defense." In other words the burden of proof beyond a reasonable doubt never shifts from the prosecution, so it's surprisingly easy to evade prosecution by claiming self-defense.

This has led to some stunning verdicts in the state. In Tallahassee in 2008, two rival gangs engaged in a neighborhood shootout, and a 15-year-old African American male was killed in the crossfire. The three defendants all either were acquitted or had their cases dismissed, because the defense successfully argued they were defending themselves under the "stand your ground" law. The state attorney in Tallahassee, Willie Meggs, was beside himself. "Basically this law has put us in the posture that our citizens can go out into the streets and have a gun fight and the dead person is buried and the survivor of the gun fight is immune from prosecution," he said at the time.

Hazardous Harry wrote:Florida suddenly became less safe than East Timor.

murdog wrote:Terrible situation. I'm kinda glad that around here, if someone has a handgun, you know its either a cop or a bad guy. Makes things simple.

Democracy Now devoted yesterdays show to the topic, including interviews with the family's lawyer, the chair of the Florida Legislature Black Caucus, the President of the Black Law Students Association at Florida A&M University, and a black reverend about the situation. There's also a discussion about the 'shoot first' law. Here's the link for anyone who is interested:

http://www.democracynow.org/shows/2012/3/20

Frazzled wrote:Are all their shows that propagandistic?

Frazzled wrote:

Hazardous Harry wrote:Florida suddenly became less safe than East Timor.

Er no.

Its always been less safe.

Hazardous Harry wrote:

Frazzled wrote:

Hazardous Harry wrote:Florida suddenly became less safe than East Timor.

Er no.

Its always been less safe.

Well, maybe ever since that little invasion incident with Indonesia I thought it might warrant some caution.


But you're right. Shooting people in the face and then just waiting for the prosecution to prove it's not self-defence? This gak be crazy.

Mannahnin wrote:Hopefully not, on this occasion. Unlike the occasion when the two gangs killed an innocent bystander and got off because they both argued they were standing their ground.

Mannahnin wrote:Hopefully in this instance there's sufficient evidence. The law (and the way the FL courts interpret it) is clearly fethed, though.

LunaHound wrote:

Kanluwen wrote:
It's not meant to. It's meant to frame the situation in context--which the news articles on this that I have been seeing lately do not.

The guy may be an absolute idiot, but it's not like he just picked a random black kid and shot him.
This was not a racially motivated incident; although it most likely did play a factor in the incident occurring.
This was not an incident which was motivated by a discriminatory attitude against teenagers; although it again most likely did play a factor in the incident occurring.


The area had a series of crimes occur, and then there comes a situation where he sees an individual he does not recognize walking on foot in a hoodie.
This led to a convergence of circumstances which resulted in a tragic ending.

The fact that the Sanford PD has by all accounts "sat on" the 911 tape is slightly suspect, but emergency calls aren't always made available for any number of reasons.

It's also worth noting that the shooter supposedly had a "history of violence" which makes me curious as to why he had a gun.

Parts highlight in red = lol.

So far the only motivation that led to the tragedy were....
he is black
he is in a hoodie

Frazzled wrote:

Mannahnin wrote:Hopefully in this instance there's sufficient evidence. The law (and the way the FL courts interpret it) is clearly fethed, though.

The law is not. Thats the problem, people are using this to impugn the law, when the law has nothing to do with it. It was put in place to avoid the nightmare scenarios that occurred in New York. Evidence does and its now coming.

Frazzled wrote:

Mr Hyena wrote:If the suspect was Black and the victim was White...would it be a hate crime?

Hispanics have their own special interests and census form notation. I'd proffer shooting someone is on its face a hate crime

Ahtman wrote:Killing someone purely based on race is, essentially, so stupid and senseless that it gets an enhanced punishment. A guy who shoots someone in a robbery wants money. A guy who shoots the man who slept with his wife wants revenge. A guy who runs over a black man just becuase he doesn't likes blacks wants?

Frazzled wrote:Thats the problem, people are using this to impugn the law, when the law has nothing to do with it. It was put in place to avoid the nightmare scenarios that occurred in New York.

Mannahnin wrote:If this guy gets off, will you acknowledge that the law is fethed?

Mannahnin wrote:

Frazzled wrote:

Mannahnin wrote:Hopefully in this instance there's sufficient evidence. The law (and the way the FL courts interpret it) is clearly fethed, though.

The law is not. Thats the problem, people are using this to impugn the law, when the law has nothing to do with it. It was put in place to avoid the nightmare scenarios that occurred in New York. Evidence does and its now coming.

The law has nothing to do with it? It's the law under which people have killed innocent bystanders in the street and walked away without criminal penalty. It's the law which results in police departments not arresting a guy who guns down an unarmed teenager, because the law says "If I say I was threatened, the government has to prove I wasn't."

If this guy gets off, will you acknowledge that the law is fethed?

Frazzled wrote:

Mannahnin wrote:

Frazzled wrote:

Mannahnin wrote:Hopefully in this instance there's sufficient evidence. The law (and the way the FL courts interpret it) is clearly fethed, though.

The law is not. Thats the problem, people are using this to impugn the law, when the law has nothing to do with it. It was put in place to avoid the nightmare scenarios that occurred in New York. Evidence does and its now coming.

The law has nothing to do with it? It's the law under which people have killed innocent bystanders in the street and walked away without criminal penalty. It's the law which results in police departments not arresting a guy who guns down an unarmed teenager, because the law says "If I say I was threatened, the government has to prove I wasn't."

If this guy gets off, will you acknowledge that the law is fethed?

Unless you have a whole lot of instances, you're blowing smoke out your ass. The law only says I don't have to attempt to flee if I am in fear of my life. It was done because of a rash of actions where overzealous prosecutors went after people defending themselves, who didn't happen to be track stars.

Seriously people going after the law in this instance are pushi g their pown personal agendas. The law doesn't have a damn thing to with what happened or the police lack of activity. They aren't related.

d-usa wrote:

Frazzled wrote:

Mannahnin wrote:

Frazzled wrote:

Mannahnin wrote:Hopefully in this instance there's sufficient evidence. The law (and the way the FL courts interpret it) is clearly fethed, though.

The law is not. Thats the problem, people are using this to impugn the law, when the law has nothing to do with it. It was put in place to avoid the nightmare scenarios that occurred in New York. Evidence does and its now coming.

The law has nothing to do with it? It's the law under which people have killed innocent bystanders in the street and walked away without criminal penalty. It's the law which results in police departments not arresting a guy who guns down an unarmed teenager, because the law says "If I say I was threatened, the government has to prove I wasn't."

If this guy gets off, will you acknowledge that the law is fethed?

Unless you have a whole lot of instances, you're blowing smoke out your ass. The law only says I don't have to attempt to flee if I am in fear of my life. It was done because of a rash of actions where overzealous prosecutors went after people defending themselves, who didn't happen to be track stars.

Seriously people going after the law in this instance are pushi g their pown personal agendas. The law doesn't have a damn thing to with what happened or the police lack of activity. They aren't related.

I don't think the law is fethed personally, but I can see how idiots like Mr. Z give ammunition to the "we need stricter gun control" crowd. I don't think Stand-Your-Ground laws breed cowboys, but I can see how cowboys like him make people weary of those laws.

It does look like the neighborhood watch had guidelines that encouraged not being armed and not following or stopping people. That didn't stop him from being armed and following the kid. So saying that not having the self-defense laws would have made a difference is pure speculation. Mr. Z got a record of attacking a police officer, so being a law abiding citizen doesn't seem to be his first priority.

Ahtman wrote:The law was good in theory but apparently no one looked at the wording of it becuase it has not had the intended effect. It is supposed to help people be able to protect themselves, but instead it is letting gang bangers get away with murder. They need to amend it, or scrap it altogether, and try again. They meant well with it but the road to hell is paved with good intentions.

Vulcan wrote:Frankly in my neighborhood getting out of your car and following someone is Looking for Trouble, and pretty much negates any possibility of a Stand Your Ground defense. Doing so after a dispatcher specifically told you not to just makes it a slam-dunk.