Trayvon Martin, Vigilante Justice

[Dan O.]

Because the warning shot itself can be used as evidence that there was no justification (i.e. the threat was not immediate.)

Where in the law does it say "immediate"?

 

[Cylinder]

Where in the law does it say "immediate"?

Arizona 13-418 "imminent peril"

Florida 776.012 "imminent use of unlawful force"

Illinois 720 5/7-1 "imminent death"

Kentucky 503.080 "immediately neccessary"

North Carolina 14.51.3 "imminent death"

 

[Natural Born Skeptic]

Because the warning shot itself can be used as evidence that there was no justification (i.e. the threat was not immediate.)

So if I have a guy covered in blood with machete in one hand and a human head in the other hand, and he's about 20' from me and says "your next", and I fire a warning shot, that's proof there was no immediate threat of harm? OK, got it.

Are you guys just stating the law here? Or are you seriously suggesting there are no situations in which a person firing a warning shot could ever be under a threat of immediate harm???

 

[Newtons Bit]

Your friend's father is an idiot.

I assume you are referring to the fact that basic gun safety tells you that "all guns are always loaded"?

 

[Natural Born Skeptic]

The facts surrounding the conviction of Marisaa Alexander are a bit troubling to me as well.

A bit troubling? No kidding. Reading this makes me want to throw up. Here's a women who's already on one occasion been beaten to within an inch or her life, her husband has just tried to strangle her and told her he's going to kill her, and she fires a warning shot and is going to go to jail for 20 years?

And guess who is prosecuting this insanity and wants to send her to jail for 20 years? Why good old Ms. Cory! Unless this article is seriously twisting the facts, this women should be paying a fine and doing a little community service.

http://www.cnn.com/2012/04/24/justice/ac360-stand-your-ground-law/index.html

 

[Dan O.]

Florida 776.012 "imminent use of unlawful force"

Kentucky 503.080 "immediately neccessary"

Do you notice a difference between those words?

 

[Bikewer]

Police agencies have universally prohibited the use of "warning shots". This primarily because of the danger to bystanders. Also, (I was around when such were allowed) they were surprisingly ineffective.
Suspects fleeing from the police (yes, we could shoot at them too, back in the day) would generally just flee faster, and drug-addled or intoxicated individuals often did not even register that a shot had been fired.

On the other hand, I am not familiar with most states placing such strictures on civilians. I have never heard of anyone being prosecuted for firing a warning shot, though should someone else be harmed or killed the shooter would certainly be held liable.

 

[Dan O.]

I assume you are referring to the fact that basic gun safety tells you that "all guns are always loaded"?

Exactly. That's what my father taught me.

 

[Dan O.]

On the other hand, I am not familiar with most states placing such strictures on civilians. I have never heard of anyone being prosecuted for firing a warning shot, though should someone else be harmed or killed the shooter would certainly be held liable.

As recent as 2002, the Missouri state supreme court commented in a case about the lack of a warning shot being fired. But there have been more recent prosecutions in several states where a warning shot was successfully used to stop a crime in progress. I found the one exception where the shop owner was not prosecuted and there the news article was questioning why not. Is there some ajenda being pushed to force gun owners to rack up more kills.

 

[crimresearch]

Arizona 13-418 "imminent peril"

Florida 776.012 "imminent use of unlawful force"

Illinois 720 5/7-1 "imminent death"

Kentucky 503.080 "immediately neccessary"

North Carolina 14.51.3 "imminent death"

And for all 50 states, in Garner, the US Supreme Court cites 'immediate' and imminent' danger as part of the standard for reasonable use of deadly force.

http://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/471/1/case.html

...a department must restrict the use of deadly force to situations where "the officer reasonably believes that the action is in defense of human life . . . or in defense of any person in immediate danger of serious physical injury."...

...Where the suspect poses no immediate threat to the officer and no threat to others, the harm resulting from failing to apprehend him does not justify the use of deadly force to do so.

 

[Cylinder]

So if I have a guy covered in blood with machete in one hand and a human head in the other hand, and he's about 20' from me and says "your next", and I fire a warning shot, that's proof there was no immediate threat of harm? OK, got it.

OK...you got me....

Take away the severed head and blood. You fire the warning shot. I advance and you fire the kill shot. Who initiated the use of force and how can a prosecutor make that look?

 

[GWCarver]

Good posts.




Also if Z lost that hearing he would, AFAIK, be open to a Civil Trial after the Criminal Trial, no matter the outcome of the Criminal Trial.

That is just one of the reasons I doubt Z's lawyers will ask for the immunity hearing. Another of which is that Z would have to take the stand at such a hearing.

First, let me say I have heard O'Mara describe SYG as "tricky" and he has had at least one SYG case, but it was settled with a plea. So, he is familiar with Florida's SYG law. However, at the time he made that statement he was new to the case. ( It is worth noting he was at much the same knowledge level of the prosecution's case as he is today, because then, just as now, he had not received discovery. That could explain his reluctance in interviews to embrace SYG or self-defense immunity. He doesn't know what the state has on his client.)

I can't disagree with your reasoning here, but it is Zimmerman's call if he wants to testify at the pretrial hearing, and he is the same person who wanted to talk to Corey directly. He clearly thinks he is innocent. IMO, O'Mara will really have to dig his heels in to keep Zimmerman from testifying in order to defend himself at the pretrial hearing. Of course, anything I say about this could look silly once discovery is made public.

I realize you weren't stating Zimmermnan's civil liability, if he is found not guilty after losing a self-defense hearing, as a fact, but I really would like to find out for certain if that is true. (I've looked, no luck yet) It would mean, effectively, that if the judge and jury disagree on his claim of self-defense, it makes him liable to civil suits even if the jury finds him not guilty of a homicide for which he has already admitted responsibility. I don't doubt that it could be true, I just think it is something the Florida lawmakers would have wanted to avoid. Because Zimmerman is not denying shooting and killing TM, a not-guilty verdict would have to mean the jury thought he acted in self-defense. In this hypothetical, the case wouldn't have reached the jury unless the judge thought a preponderance of the evidence showed it wasn't self-defense or SYG. But, they do call it an "immunity" hearing, so that could be the reason - the one chance for immunity.

 

[Rare Truth]

First, let me say I have heard O'Mara describe SYG as "tricky" and he has had at least one SYG case, but it was settled with a plea. So, he is familiar with Florida's SYG law. However, at the time he made that statement he was new to the case. ( It is worth noting he was at much the same knowledge level of the prosecution's case as he is today, because then, just as now, he had not received discovery. That could explain his reluctance in interviews to embrace SYG or self-defense immunity. He doesn't know what the state has on his client.)

I can't disagree with your reasoning here, but it is Zimmerman's call if he wants to testify at the pretrial hearing, and he is the same person who wanted to talk to Corey directly. He clearly thinks he is innocent. IMO, O'Mara will really have to dig his heels in to keep Zimmerman from testifying in order to defend himself at the pretrial hearing. Of course, anything I say about this could look silly once discovery is made public.

....

In most cases, the defendant has to testify in pre-trial SYG defenses.

That's because only the defendant can state why he was in fear for his life in an immunity hearing.

 

[Rare Truth]

Here's an article that discusses it:
George Zimmerman Expected To Take The Stand In Trayvon Martin Murder Case

(MSNBC)- If George Zimmerman, the killer of Trayvon Martin, wants to claim self-defense under Florida's "Stand Your Ground" law, he most certainly will have to testify, criminal defense attorneys in Florida told msnbc.com.

It is rare in criminal cases for defendants to be called to testify because they have a right against self-incrimination and it opens them up to sharp questions from prosecutors.

But Zimmerman, charged with second-degree murder in the fatal shooting of Martin during a scuffle in a gated Sanford, Fla., community on Feb. 26, will need to explain why he thought his life was in danger when he shot the unarmed black teenager, attorneys not involved with the case say.

"There is no way around it," Derek Byrd, incoming president of the Florida Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers, told msnbc.com. "I personally believe he would have to testify. It's not like a case where there were three other witnesses. Who else is going to say he was fearing for his safety when he shot Trayvon Martin?

"http://www.kcentv.com/story/1740993...rayvon-martin-murder-case-legal-observers-say

 

[GWCarver]

In most cases, the defendant has to testify in pre-trial SYG defenses.

That's because only the defendant can state why he was in fear for his life in an immunity hearing.

I agree, but Zimmerman will have a pretrial hearing which doesn't have to be SYG or self-defense, unless it is waived.

 

[Dancing David]

Exactly. That's what my father taught me.

And apparently the idiocy is mine, it has been 15 years since that conversation, and I called down to southern Illinois the answer is "Don't point a gun at anything you don't want to blow a hole in."

So any idiocy was mine.

 

[Rare Truth]

I agree, but Zimmerman will have a pretrial hearing which doesn't have to be SYG or self-defense, unless it is waived.

I may be wrong on this account, but I think the pre-trial hearing would be for the SYG immunity hearing.

If they don't go SYG defense, it's on to the full murder trial.

Anyone want to correct me if I'm wrong?

 

[GWCarver]

I may be wrong on this account, but I think the pre-trial hearing would be for the SYG immunity hearing.

If they don't go SYG defense, it's on to the full murder trial.

Anyone want to correct me if I'm wrong?

I'll tell you what, I've looked around and it appears that probable cause affidavit was actually an indictment. No wonder Dershowitz is going bonkers. I stand corrected. It seems no one anywhere is describing that document and press conference as an indictment. I thought it was simply something they slapped together to get an arrest.

Oh well, thanks for the correction. If anyone can corroborate this, please weigh-in.

ETA - I'm pretty sure there can be a pretrial hearing for either self-defense or SYG.

 

[Rare Truth]

I'll tell you what, I've looked around and it appears that probable cause affidavit was actually an indictment.
... .

Congratulations Sherlock.
Indictment: "a formal accusation that a person has committed a crime."

 

[GWCarver]

Congratulations Sherlock.
Indictment: "a formal accusation that a person has committed a crime."

OK, if you want to play that way, you're on. BTW, I'm retracting my opinion that Zimmerman has been indicted. I'll be needing a citation to confirm your assertion that Zimmerman has been indicted.