CoMF wrote:
After reviewing all of the known facts surrounding this case, I believe that the main reason Zimmerman hasn't been prosecuted is due more to a lack of evidence than any protection afforded by Florida's "Stand Your Ground" law. Curiously enough, some of the original sponsors of the bill are actually
condemning Zimmerman's actions and opine that he should, in fact, be prosecuted. (
Link)
If this law is in fact shielding the suspicious use of lethal force from prosecution, we need to (once again) get to the root of the problem by examining the law itself to see where loopholes, if any, exist as opposed to sidetracking ourselves with political bickering. Only then will any problems be solved.
Hi CoMF,
After parts of claims that "Stand Your Ground" (SYG) wasn't applied were illustrated as erroneous, the claim was made that challenges to David Kopel's article's assertions (linked below) had to be backed up with specifics, instead of generalities or particulars, to the person's claiming that:
" xxx [ he could, (the person demanding) ] change reality with [ his ] words"
(he claimed that he could change reality with just his words, as a contention of perceived truth versus "facts", the way it "sounded"), just prior before his newer demand:
Dox47 wrote:
Tadzio wrote:
IMO, David Kopel makes fundamental errors of assumptions & errors in logic & law here.
Care to back that up with specifics? Or is this going to be yet another of your naked assertions "backed" with tangential references and thinly veiled insults?
And as I already mentioned citations that Kopel's citations repeated again of old case(s) (which I had previously cited on/around March 04, 2012):
(for instance: Then it, the Supreme Court clarified the then labeled "Castle" doctrine:
http://www.google.com/search?sourceid=c ... an+said%22 "The central law journal, Volume 48" (1899), page 8, case at:
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/g ... &invol=550 ),
I cited the particular official response for the public involving the present interest stating that SYG WAS THE LAW BEING APPLIED & BEING FOLLOWED:
Tadzio wrote:
From:
http://www.sanfordfl.gov/investigation/ ... ooting.pdfCity Manager wrote:
In an effort to continue to be as responsive as possible to the public seeking information on the incident, I have asked Chief Lee to provide answers to some of the most frequently asked questions regarding this matter. Below are his responses. Please understand that since this is still an ongoing investigation, the Police Department is limited in what information it can publicly release.
..............
Why was George Zimmerman not arrested the night of the shooting?
When the Sanford Police Department arrived at the scene of the incident, Mr. Zimmerman provided a statement claiming he acted in self defense which at the time was supported by physical evidence and testimony. By Florida Statute, law enforcement was PROHIBITED from making an arrest based on the facts and circumstances they had at the time. Additionally, when any police officer makes an arrest for any reason, the officer MUST swear and affirm that he/she is making the arrest in good faith and with probable cause. If the arrest is done maliciously and in bad faith, the officer and the City may be held liable.
According to Florida Statute 776.032 :
776.032 Immunity from criminal prosecution and civil action for justifiable use of force.—
(1) A person who uses force as permitted in s. 776.012, s. 776.013, or s. 776.031 is justified in using such force and is immune from criminal prosecution and civil action for the use of such force, unless the person against whom force was used is a law enforcement officer, as defined in s. 943.10(14), who was acting in the performance of his or her official duties and the officer identified himself or herself in accordance with any applicable law or the person using force knew or reasonably should have known that the person was a law enforcement officer. As used in this subsection, the term “criminal prosecution” includes ARRESTING, detaining in custody, and charging or prosecuting the defendant.
(2) A law enforcement agency may use standard procedures for investigating the use of force as described in subsection (1), but the agency may not arrest the person for using force unless it determines that there is probable cause that the force that was used was unlawful.
Why weren’t the 911 tapes initially released?
There are exemptions to the public records laws for active criminal intelligence and.......................
VERSUS:
Dox47 wrote:
David Kopel takes a more in depth look at Florida's self defense laws and their applicability to this case:
http://volokh.com/2012/03/27/floridas-s ... more-57774David Kopel wrote:
.......................
In sum: there is not a shred of support for the claim that Florida law protects, or has protected Zimmerman, if he unlawfully attacked Martin. If Zimmerman’s story is true (Martin attacked him, putting him in imminent peril of grave bodily injury, with no opportunity to retreat), then Zimmerman’s self-defense claim would be valid under the laws of Florida, New York, or any other Anglo-American jurisdiction. The particular legal changes resulting from Florida’s “Stand Your Ground” and “Castle Doctrine” laws (deadly force in the home/automobile; no duty to retreat in public places; Fourth Amendment arrest standard affirmation; protection from civil suits) simply have nothing to do with whether Zimmerman’s actions were or were not lawful.
DOUBLE GEE WHIZ!! ! "By Florida Statute, law enforcement was PROHIBITED from making an arrest based on the facts and circumstances they had at the time" by that "According to Florida Statute 776.032", and that is NOT being "protected" from being arrested according to a ""reliable"" source of balderdash cited by Dox47 (protected by the VERY BIG little word "if" to make the saying of nothing sound like saying something very important and decisive, but actually, the more possible unlawfulness is determined much later, with the Florida Statute Law 776.032 providing the immediate protection with PROHIBITION from arrest)! !!
Then, as follow up, the City cited followed & practiced Laws that "didn't" have anything with what's lawful by the double-talking VERY BIG little if'ers.
Tadzio
So, it seems, the SYG law is now what's being politically/publicly defended by many of the law's continuing political/legal/public backers & defenders, while the potential defendant is (WAS, by most SYG promoters) under the SYG new version, which if SYG is then federally challenged as the new SYG law giving the potential defendant immunity, the new SYG law itself will probably fall in higher federal courts.
The Florida Supreme Court stands mainly with the immunity granted by Florida's SYG, overriding lower state courts:
Govoni v. State, writ of prohibition of denial of motion asserting statutory imunity:
http://caselaw.findlaw.com/fl-district- ... 83559.html
ON REMAND FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA, PER CURIAM. Govoni v. State of Florida:
http://www.4dca.org/opinions/Aug%202011 ... 371.op.pdf
With many of the legal arguments of the laws' application (they lost motion on IMO seeming "facts" not in criteria of the "laws", but the points in current potential defendant's case is the criteria of the laws (so I foresee possible irrelevant side-tracts to protect SYG laws instead of the following of the new SYG laws from the new SYG laws supporters with current "case"! !!)):
Florida v. Justin Campos, Motion To Dismiss & For Statutory Immunity From Prosecution:
http://media.naplesnews.com/media/stati ... motion.pdf
Campos denial:
http://media.naplesnews.com/media/stati ... ng_PDF.pdf
Judge denies Stand Your Ground motion in Fort Myers strip club homicide case, (with sample video):
http://www.news-press.com/article/20120 ... -homicides
http://www.winknews.com/Local-Florida/2 ... -in-prison
ORDER ON MOTION FOR STATUTORY IMMUNITY FROM PROSECUTION
http://media.naplesnews.com/media/stati ... 150108.pdf
IMO, Florida's new SYG laws are illegal, but for for victims of the victims falling for the illegal laws, and these victims of the layers of the other victims..... , anyone believing the nonsense of the new SYG, and acted under the belief the laws were legal to the point of exploitation, will be in the lurch or "justice" of different (but the "same") Double Jeopardy & Guilt & Not & Immunity & Not, but mentioning these parts of "established" law & order will get...............................
Then, with endless pamphlets ensuring immunity involving deadly force in any "reasonable threat", is there an element of "screaming fire in a crowded theatre" with immunity only remaining for promoting groups pushing bogus "laws", under the seeming guise of the 2nd amendment, but actually the only possibility being the 1st?
(Will there be a maddening future career in mud-wrestling with only poor-to- mediocre "justice" for the killer perhaps offered to soon semi-playing "patsy" roles with lost immunity in order of only to save the new SYG Law, and no true justice at all for others???).
Tadzio
30 Mar 2012, 4:29 pm
