I worry this is going to become the next Duke rape case. (Apologies for Wikifist)
The level of really ugly rhetoric and people claiming aggravating/mitigating "facts" for a racially-charged event seems to multiply every day. But what makes this worse than the Duke case is that someone definitely died, and it's very likely there won't be any reasonable conclusion.
That's what we've been saying! The DA/State Attorney claimed there wasn't enough evidence to prosecute, using the SYG law as their guideline. That's why those laws are being scrutinized....as well as the competency of the police. Latest ABC reports say the initial responding detective wanted to file manslaughter charges (because Zimmerman's account wasn't credible) but he was overruled by superiors and attorneys.Originally Posted by RandBlade
That my be well and true, but the problem with it from a legal perspective is that if you've assaulted someone, you've committed a crime, and generally speaking, you can be held criminally liable for anything that arises from that initial crime, like your victim dying.
And that's why all this noise about the SYG law being to blame is bullshit - in this country, you can't claim self-defense if you're defending yourself because of a crime you committed. It's how robbers who "shoot back" at their victims end up on death row, and for that matter, it's the same logic that they use to convict unarmed wheelmen of murder, when the criminal enterprise they're involved in goes wrong and someone dies.
Well, as mentioned, the injuries didn't even warrant a hospital visit, so I don't believe the account that he had his head "smashed" or "pounded" against the pavement. (Sounds more like his head hit the street when the rest of him did.) I'd also point out that it takes more force to properly brain someone on the ground than you seem to think it does. It takes a lot of effort for me to smash someone's head against the pavement, and I'm a pretty big guy who's been trained in how to most efficiently do so. Not sure a skinny 17 year old is going to be able to do it with enough force to make it worse than, say, getting punched in the face. When you punch someone, it's pretty easy to throw your weight into it with the hip and shoulder, when you're grabbing someone's head to smash it, you're really relying mostly on the arm muscles to apply the force, and you also have the disadvantage of having only a few inches in which to do it (you can't very well pull someone's neck forward a couple feet), so it really does require applying a lot of upper body strength very quickly, and is not as easy as you'd think. (Incidentally, this is why the armed forces will teach you to get the other guy on the ground and stomp hiss head, or use the butt of your rifle. Much easier and more civilized.)
But don't take my word for it, try it out for yourself. () You'll want to lean forward to get some weight behind it and try to push from your pecs as much as possible.
Again, you can't claim self-defense when you're committing a crime (like stalking or assault), even with the SYG law. So as much as you obviously don't like this law, it's just not applicable. Zimmerman committed (at least) a crime against the "fuckin' coon," and in doing so, he forfeited his right to claim self-defense, even under SYG.
No, those laws are being scrutinized on the basis of ignorance and political affiliation. (Funny how those two things go together so often.) Self-defense does not apply when you're committing a crime, so all this noise about SYG is just a bunch of people who don't like the statute playing politics with justice for a dead kid. On the bright side, at least they're doing it witha ni...someone who doesn't matter, instead of a white person.
"I predict future happiness for Americans if they can prevent the government from wasting the labors of the people under the pretense of taking care of them."
"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants."
-- Thomas Jefferson: American Founding Father, clairvoyant and seditious traitor.
Cain, there is an example of one case here where two gang members involved in a shoot out back in 2010 were deemed immune from prosecution because they were held to have been standing their ground. Whatever you think of the idea behind the law, it seems clear that the level of derp involved in the Florida implementation of SYG in particular has been causing problems.
The light that once I thought compassion still casting shadows in your action
The words you shared were cold transactions that bring me to curse what you've done
When you're up there absorbed in greatness with such success you've grown complacent
I hope you scorch your many faces when you fly too close to the sun
Not sure what's objectionable about that, at least as it applies to invoking self-defense. If a gang-banger shoots at you, you ought to have every right to return fire... or do you disagree and feel that the proper tactical approach is to try to outrun gunfire?
Well, sure, maybe Florida's too fucked up and backwards to make things like "law" work as intended. But that's not a problem with any politicized statute, it's a problem with the people of Florida. (And of course, you can apply the same criticism to every government that currently, or has ever existed.)
But frankly, if their courts are really so fucked up that they can't handle self-defense statutes, it's all the more reason for laws putting more power in the hands of citizens and less in the hands of the government asshats fucking everything up.
"I predict future happiness for Americans if they can prevent the government from wasting the labors of the people under the pretense of taking care of them."
"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants."
-- Thomas Jefferson: American Founding Father, clairvoyant and seditious traitor.
This is false, usually the law requires an immediate threat to your person before the criminals rights are removed to this level. This is why SYG laws came to be, to remove that line of when the threat is removed and the victim becomes the aggressor. A thief, for example, has full rights to claim self defense to protect himself if a store clerk chases him down and delivers an unrelenting beat down.
"In a field where an overlooked bug could cost millions, you want people who will speak their minds, even if they’re sometimes obnoxious about it."
I have a hard time believing that, so let's refer to the relevant statutes.
Relevant information italicized.
Last edited by Enoch the Red; 03-29-2012 at 01:48 AM.
Not if I'm on the jury...
The relevant part is here:
And as such you could argue that the act of theft, fleeing, and brawl afterwards are different events, especially in the case of a thief thats fearing for his life after stealing toothpaste. Thats why why we the term subdue.
"In a field where an overlooked bug could cost millions, you want people who will speak their minds, even if they’re sometimes obnoxious about it."
Fleeing the scene of a crime is not lawful behavior Ominous, it is the exact opposite.
Last edited by Enoch the Red; 03-29-2012 at 01:46 AM.
Which is irrelevant to the discussion at hand anyway, its the subduing part thats important. I was simply breaking it up in the most likely way you would see it play out in the courts. That of the shop keeper entering the role of the aggressor for chasing a fleeing suspect.
"In a field where an overlooked bug could cost millions, you want people who will speak their minds, even if they’re sometimes obnoxious about it."
To be honest, I'm not certain what you are trying to argue here. If you are arguing a person can instigate a fight and then be shielded from the repercussions, that simply isn't the case, (at least based off of my entirely unprofessional reading of the law). If you are arguing that a thief who is engaging in unlawful activity could conceivably be covered, that also has been shown to violate the law as it is written.
I'd be happy to better understand your point, but as it stands I'm just not getting it.
You appear to be understanding my point, but not the law as its written
"In a field where an overlooked bug could cost millions, you want people who will speak their minds, even if they’re sometimes obnoxious about it."
Then break it down for me, OG.
keeping with existing example..
776.013 (3) does not give a shop keeper a blank check to do with a thief as they see fit. It doesn't impower a shop keeper to chase someone down and murder them because they stole a candy bar. The theft, the fleeing, and confrontation once caught are different events. A shop keeper that continues to beat down on a suspect after they subdued is breaking the law, they are threatening the life of the suspect, and that suspect is thus placed in the position of using SYG and other defense laws to protect their life.
776.013 (3) is used to protect victims from having SYG used against them when there is a threat of harm during the immediate event: muggings, rapes, etc
Thats the defense that Zimmerman is in fact using. His "stalking" ended when he was returning to his truck, and the confrontation is a different event where he ended up fearing for his life. What we are lacking is the important information concerning why the teenager was witnessed to be on top as the aggressor.
"In a field where an overlooked bug could cost millions, you want people who will speak their minds, even if they’re sometimes obnoxious about it."
Of course not, I don't think anyone would dispute that, (depending on the nature of the theft, of course). However, it likely wouldn't cover the thief either because they are also engaging in unlawful activity. The theft and fleeing the scene of a crime would not likely be considered independently from the attack itself.
Assaulting anyone after they have been subdued wouldn't be covered by SYG, in the case of the shopkeeper or thief.
If Zimmerman was attacked on his way back to his truck instead of being attacked while chasing down the kid, I would not consider him to be egregiously in violation of the law. He was wrong to chase after the kid, but if he did not confront him, and was returning to his vehicle when he was attacked then there is not much of a case against Zimmerman, and I certainly wouldn't consider him to be some kind of monster. A racist vigilante, maybe, but even racist vigilantes can act in self-defense.776.013 (3) is used to protect victims from having SYG used against them when there is a threat of harm during the immediate event: muggings, rapes, etc
Thats the defense that Zimmerman is in fact using. His "stalking" ended when he was returning to his truck, and the confrontation is a different event where he ended up fearing for his life. What we are lacking is the important information concerning why the teenager was witnessed to be on top as the aggressor.
Your statement is blatantly incorrect, and a "predicate crime/offense" charge is exactly how some dumb robber ends up doing life for murder when the shopkeeper shoots his accomplice dead.
If they can charge and convict robber A for robber B's death when civilian C is the only shooter, they can certainly charge racist stalker D for the death of "fuckin' coon" E when racist stalker D is the actual shooter. That they didn't and haven't is proof that there's something else at place here (politics, bigotry, incompetence, etc.) beyond the legal reasoning.
How nice for him. A bottom-of-the-class law student could shred that defense to pieces, which says a lot about the retarded apes you guys apparently have/had on the case. Oh, and speaking of, how's that government-is-the-solution-to-everything theory of yours working out these days?
I find it hard to believe, even unreasonably so, that an unarmed kid is going to attack someone who's got 80 pounds on him without a provocation (like Zimmerman flashing a piece, perhaps). Could happen, but that's putting a high burden on Zimmerman's positive defense, especially given the stalking behavior and the "fuckin' coon" comment. SYG law or not, Zimmerman would be going away for some form of homicide if the cops had arrested him at the scene and not let all the evidence be destroyed (and he still may, even with the cops and prosecutors sabotaging the crap out of this case).
"I predict future happiness for Americans if they can prevent the government from wasting the labors of the people under the pretense of taking care of them."
"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants."
-- Thomas Jefferson: American Founding Father, clairvoyant and seditious traitor.
I absolutely don't find it plausible either, but I'm also not current on the details of the case.
The writing of the law doesn't provide a context limiter of this level. Because as we've clarified already, the subdueing is a different event from the theft. The shop keeper would still legally be required to use only enough force to subdue, and if he crosses that line after the fact, the thief can fall under the protection of self defense laws. Human life in the courts has a tendency to outweigh most other events.
Was referring to seperate events, not crimes within crimes
only you would attempt to take a law that was designed to reduce government interference and harrassment over self defense and claim its an example of big government. Shouldn't be surprised however, its not the first time you've tried this ass backwards logic here.
----------
Someone managed to get video footage of Zimmerman being brought in for questioning after the murder. No signs of blood, bruising, grass stains...or anything. News is now also calling him the neighborhood watch captain, if thats true, this guy definitely interfaced with the police on previous occasions.
Last edited by Ominous Gamer; 03-29-2012 at 02:06 PM.
"In a field where an overlooked bug could cost millions, you want people who will speak their minds, even if they’re sometimes obnoxious about it."
A lot of "ifs" there. It's also possible Zimmerman was the aggressor and threw the first punch, then Trayvon Martin would be "standing his ground" in self-defense. Too bad for him some pushing or shoving (or whatever physical force was going on) was met with a loaded gun. Unfortunately, the boy died and can't give his account of what happened.
SYG defense is something only a court of law should decide after an arrest is made and charges are filed, and a full and complete investigation. That would apply to victims of domestic abuse who shoot and kill their spouse, too. (Supposedly one group the SYG laws were meant to help.) People can have a presumption of innocence and still be charged with a crime, until the details are sorted out. There was plenty of "reasonable cause" to treat this as vigilantism first.
<And vigilantism with deadly force is a crime. Zimmerman was the Neighborhood Watch captain, but they're not supposed to patrol with a gun. Their group isn't endorsed by national sheriffs and watch groups either.>
I don't think it likely, GGT, but it seemed to be the angle OG was pushing. As I said before, I am not current on the case, nor have I been following it closely.
I think you are confusing an end to the investigation with an immediate arrest. Someone does not have to physically be jailed for an investigation to take place.SYG defense is something only a court of law should decide after an arrest is made and charges are filed, and a full and complete investigation. That would apply to victims of domestic abuse who shoot and kill their spouse, too. (Supposedly one group the SYG laws were meant to help.) People can have a presumption of innocence and still be charged with a crime, until the details are sorted out. There was plenty of "reasonable cause" to treat this as vigilantism first.
<And vigilantism with deadly force is a crime. Zimmerman was the Neighborhood Watch captain, but they're not supposed to patrol with a gun. Their group isn't endorsed by national sheriffs and watch groups either.>
Well, good for you, but you're making a legal distinction where none exists, and shockingly, using this very flawed interpretation of the law to push a political agenda. Weird.
And only you could take what I said and twist it into the complete opposite without missing a beat. World-class reading comprehension as usual.
Kinda depends on who you ask, doesn't it? You know, considering what S.O.P. in a criminal investigation and/or trial is.
"I predict future happiness for Americans if they can prevent the government from wasting the labors of the people under the pretense of taking care of them."
"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants."
-- Thomas Jefferson: American Founding Father, clairvoyant and seditious traitor.
He was handcuffed and taken to the police station. I don't know the point a "suspect" has to be put under arrest and read Miranda rights, before they can collect forensic evidence (blood or grassed stained clothes, photos of injuries, or the gun itself). But the video shows the cops getting their own DNA all over his jacket and shirt while they pat him down. Someone also cleaned him up if he had a broken nose, his head bashed into the concrete. That should be written somewhere (even if it's from an EMT) and be part of the file.
It's either police incompetence or preferential treatment --for the shooter-- if those things weren't done. Knowing how controversial this case has become, it's surprising
those details weren't part of their press releases.
It is?Knowing how controversial this case has become, it's surprising
those details weren't part of their press releases.
You know, police don't usually inform the media of their various corrupt activities, like getting a buddy or fellow officer out of legal trouble.
"I predict future happiness for Americans if they can prevent the government from wasting the labors of the people under the pretense of taking care of them."
"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants."
-- Thomas Jefferson: American Founding Father, clairvoyant and seditious traitor.
Well, duh.
That's ridiculous. The police don't need SYG laws to derail the wheels of justice. Regular citizens who have been put into a bad position on the other hand, might.Well, duh.
You are seeing a sad politicization of a tragedy that is unrelated to the crime and the subsequent investigation.
Dingdingding.
If anything, this whole debacle is an argument against police, not against efforts to limit their power or reach.
Of course. Better to blame some statute you don't like than fess up to the fact that you sabotaged a case against a "colleague" because the victim was just some "fuckin' coon" anyhow.
And the number of people buying into that obvious excuse vindicates my loathing of humanity... surprising how vindication doesn't make feel any better at all.
"I predict future happiness for Americans if they can prevent the government from wasting the labors of the people under the pretense of taking care of them."
"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants."
-- Thomas Jefferson: American Founding Father, clairvoyant and seditious traitor.
What I'm seeing is one police dept. (Sanford) whose senior management refused to press murder charges that (at least one) detective found appropriate, and gave FL's SYG law as the reason. Their police chief, mayor, city manager, DA and State Attorney all seemed to be on board with that, until the story went viral. Their use of SYG to stymie an arrest and/or proper investigation makes it related and relative to the shooting, and their view that "no crime" had been committed.
Not once in this thread have I said SYG laws cause the 'wheels of justice to derail'. I've suggested they might be used in ways that don't improve on justice, or could be used by people trying to get away with another crime. Whether it's corrupt police, or sociopathic citizens.
IMO the SYG laws are un-needed legislation that's already covered by existing self-defense or domain protection laws, do nothing but add complications to who defines "self-defense", and what "reasonable and corresponding use of force" means. If you disagree, I'd be interested to know why. Especially since you're known to advocate for fewer laws, and getting rid of bureaucratic duplications.
This is essentially a truism, GGT. If the local police and prosecutors don't want to go ahead with a case that falls under their jurisdiction, then they can find a way to make it go away. It can be by mishandling or losing evidence, ginning up a witness, or simply not pursuing the case to justice. Again, they don't need the SYG to set up an investigation for failure.
I think it's good to hold opinions.IMO the SYG laws are un-needed legislation that's already covered by existing self-defense or domain protection laws, do nothing but add complications to who defines "self-defense", and what "reasonable and corresponding use of force" means. If you disagree, I'd be interested to know why. Especially since you're known to advocate for fewer laws, and getting rid of bureaucratic duplications.
Pop quiz - what was the legal standard for self defense in Florida before SYG?
(FYI, it imposed a duty on the victim to attempt to avoid the conflict before allowing them to legitimately defend themselves, and that is morally reprehensible, charging someone with a crime for defending themselves against an attacker.)
"I predict future happiness for Americans if they can prevent the government from wasting the labors of the people under the pretense of taking care of them."
"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants."
-- Thomas Jefferson: American Founding Father, clairvoyant and seditious traitor.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
