|
This is a sensitive and complex issue, please do not make comments without first reading the facts, which are cataloged in the OP. |
On March 25 2012 08:05 NotSorry wrote:
The officer watching the crime would give him probable cause, right?
Sry I'm not a law student, I just an mma fighter that did forensics for year
I thought not arresting someone who you believe committed a crime and arresting someone who you know didnt commit a crime were both violations of due process. That's how it was presented in class... but I am being told I'm mistaken and apparently the guy is an attorney as well so idn anymore lol
|
How is it he "believed committed a crime" if the officer watched him commit a crime?
Or is it just "believed" due to innocent in til proven guilty in a court of law?
|
On March 25 2012 08:04 stokes17 wrote:Show nested quote +On March 25 2012 07:59 dAPhREAk wrote:On March 25 2012 07:56 stokes17 wrote:On March 25 2012 07:49 dAPhREAk wrote:On March 25 2012 07:47 stokes17 wrote:On March 25 2012 07:42 dAPhREAk wrote:On March 25 2012 07:38 stokes17 wrote:On March 25 2012 07:34 dAPhREAk wrote:On March 25 2012 07:29 stokes17 wrote:On March 25 2012 06:56 dAPhREAk wrote:[quote] they decided there wasnt enough evidence to charge him of a crime based on constitutional principles (i.e., probable cause). i disagree with that decision, but i dont know all the facts. you keep oversimplifying all the issues. sigh, another person using due process incorrectly. are you the person i corrected earlier in this thread? edit: it wasnt you. it was someone else. zimmerman is entitled to due process, not the family. see my previous post. http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=322664¤tpage=70#1384 Have you actually read the SYG law? It does actually say that deadly force is justified if you feel threatened. You are allowed to "stand your ground." That is the wording and intent of the law And there is no decision to arrest Zimmerman. If the Police have probable cause to believe you committed a crime you are arrested. Zimmerman was found near the dead body, bloody, with a gun. The police do not decide if a homicide is justified. To prove justifiable homicide you have to 1st admit to the crime, which Zimmerman did, and then you have to prove that your defense is sound. The burden is on the defendant to demonstrate he acted in self defense. When I said due process was violated I meant that Zimmerman was not required to prove his defense in a court of law. Instead no charges were filed and he was allowed to go free. Again, A justifiable homicide is still a homicide and the accused has to be arrested if there is probable cause he committed the crime. It is up to a jury of his peers to determine if his defense is sound. Imo, trying to sweep this case under the rug by not charging Zimmerman is a breach of due process, and as an extension obstruction of justice. I think the fact that the Police chief resigned and the DA transferred the case support my assertion that due process was violated. Just because due process was violated in Zimmerman's favor doesn't mean it wasn't violated. i read the Florida jury instructions and posted them in this thread at least three times now. please provide me a cite to where the law says "deadly force is justified if you feel threatened." a legitimate cite (i.e., the Florida statute, the jury instructions, the Supreme Court), because that is what i have provided multiple times. you are still not using the term due process correctly. you can google it if you want to know what it means. i agree he should be arrested and a trial had. Due process is the legal requirement that the state must respect all of the legal rights that are owed to a person. Just because Zimmerman would have preferred there not to be a trial doesn't mean he and the general public are not entitled to one. The Sanford PD violated due process by not arresting Zimmerman after he admitted to killing Martin. I'm gonna go read the SYG law myself now, I've been working off of class notes up til now. EDIT: first line of wikipedia entry on the law -- A stand-your-ground law states that a person may use deadly force in self-defense when there is reasonable belief of a threat, without an obligation to retreat first. That's literally what I've been saying. if you are going to cite me wiki when i have been citing the actual law, i am not going to continue this conversation. bro you questioned my use of due process.....What do you what beside a dictionary definition? Which for the record I've been using correctly with the working assumption of the SYG law i had from class-- that it was an affirmative defense. That SYG line was taken from the Florida entry on the law. I just posted the actual wording of the law in an above post so i won't repost it. And while I had been misinformed(FL SYG Law actually grants immunity from prosecution, its not an affirmative defense). It certainly does not quell my fears that this law is abhorrent and needs to be stricken from the books. you have not been using due process correctly. and you are still oversimplifying the self defense law in Florida. Yes it is a correct usage, I was working under the understanding that SYG law in FL allows you justify a homicide charge. If that were the case, not arresting Zimmerman would have been a violation of due process. Since my professor had misinformed me, i was working under that assumption. My professor is PA bar accredited attorney and he literally said in class by his understanding of the SYG law the "police violated due process by not arresting Zimmerman." I'm only a crj minor so I won't even try to claim expertise on the matter, Like maybe he was speaking colloquially and maybe I don't fully understand what "granting all legal rights", but I don't think so. Since the FL SYG grants you immunity from arrest, there was no violation. But arresting someone who you have probable cause committed a crime falls under the umbrella of due process. I don't understand why you would think otherwise. You just keep saying I'm wrong.... since we are throwing out credentials, i am a California bar accredited attorney and i say that you did not use the term due process correctly in the prior posts. i dont know what your professor said so i wont comment on that. but you cannot violate due process by not arresting someone, you can only violate it by arresting someone without probable cause. due process is owed to criminal defendants. So if as an officer watch a crime occur and don't arrest the guy they saw commit the crime. The officer has not violated due process? I literally was given that example in class as violation of due process. idn, maybe the guy's a kook... I don't think he's practiced in a number of years. EDIT: word usage aside, since you are an expert in the field can you explain how my interpretation of the SYG law in this post is incorrect. And if it is not, can you explain what use it serves being on the books ? + Show Spoiler +And to address your claim of oversimplification here is the exact lettering of the law that I take issue with:
.+ Show Spoiler +
if you use .013(3) to justify .012. You have basically given a person the ability to use deadly force with immunity from arrest and criminal prosecution as granted here in .032(1) + Show Spoiler + simply for "reasonably believes it is necessary to do so to prevent death or great bodily harm to himself"
Was that specific enough for you now? Please explain to me what use this law has in the penal code. In practice it has resulted in 168 unarmed people being killed. And in theory it gives private citizens easier access to deadly force(with no oversight) than trained sworn in police officers with heavy oversight
due process means the government cant do anything to you without following certain formalities (e.g., they cant arrest you without probable cause that you committed a crime).
Fifth Amendment
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
A similar due process provision is contained in the Fourteenth Amendment.
i have never heard of a due process violation when the government fails to do anything. i dont understand why your professor would say that since the due process clauses only prevent action, not inaction. if that makes sense.
|
On March 25 2012 08:13 dAPhREAk wrote:Show nested quote +On March 25 2012 08:04 stokes17 wrote:On March 25 2012 07:59 dAPhREAk wrote:On March 25 2012 07:56 stokes17 wrote:On March 25 2012 07:49 dAPhREAk wrote:On March 25 2012 07:47 stokes17 wrote:On March 25 2012 07:42 dAPhREAk wrote:On March 25 2012 07:38 stokes17 wrote:On March 25 2012 07:34 dAPhREAk wrote:On March 25 2012 07:29 stokes17 wrote:
[quote]
Have you actually read the SYG law? It does actually say that deadly force is justified if you feel threatened. You are allowed to "stand your ground." That is the wording and intent of the law
And there is no decision to arrest Zimmerman. If the Police have probable cause to believe you committed a crime you are arrested. Zimmerman was found near the dead body, bloody, with a gun. The police do not decide if a homicide is justified. To prove justifiable homicide you have to 1st admit to the crime, which Zimmerman did, and then you have to prove that your defense is sound. The burden is on the defendant to demonstrate he acted in self defense.
When I said due process was violated I meant that Zimmerman was not required to prove his defense in a court of law. Instead no charges were filed and he was allowed to go free. Again, A justifiable homicide is still a homicide and the accused has to be arrested if there is probable cause he committed the crime. It is up to a jury of his peers to determine if his defense is sound.
Imo, trying to sweep this case under the rug by not charging Zimmerman is a breach of due process, and as an extension obstruction of justice. I think the fact that the Police chief resigned and the DA transferred the case support my assertion that due process was violated.
Just because due process was violated in Zimmerman's favor doesn't mean it wasn't violated. i read the Florida jury instructions and posted them in this thread at least three times now. please provide me a cite to where the law says "deadly force is justified if you feel threatened." a legitimate cite (i.e., the Florida statute, the jury instructions, the Supreme Court), because that is what i have provided multiple times. you are still not using the term due process correctly. you can google it if you want to know what it means. i agree he should be arrested and a trial had. Due process is the legal requirement that the state must respect all of the legal rights that are owed to a person. Just because Zimmerman would have preferred there not to be a trial doesn't mean he and the general public are not entitled to one. The Sanford PD violated due process by not arresting Zimmerman after he admitted to killing Martin. I'm gonna go read the SYG law myself now, I've been working off of class notes up til now. EDIT: first line of wikipedia entry on the law -- A stand-your-ground law states that a person may use deadly force in self-defense when there is reasonable belief of a threat, without an obligation to retreat first. That's literally what I've been saying. if you are going to cite me wiki when i have been citing the actual law, i am not going to continue this conversation. bro you questioned my use of due process.....What do you what beside a dictionary definition? Which for the record I've been using correctly with the working assumption of the SYG law i had from class-- that it was an affirmative defense. That SYG line was taken from the Florida entry on the law. I just posted the actual wording of the law in an above post so i won't repost it. And while I had been misinformed(FL SYG Law actually grants immunity from prosecution, its not an affirmative defense). It certainly does not quell my fears that this law is abhorrent and needs to be stricken from the books. you have not been using due process correctly. and you are still oversimplifying the self defense law in Florida. Yes it is a correct usage, I was working under the understanding that SYG law in FL allows you justify a homicide charge. If that were the case, not arresting Zimmerman would have been a violation of due process. Since my professor had misinformed me, i was working under that assumption. My professor is PA bar accredited attorney and he literally said in class by his understanding of the SYG law the "police violated due process by not arresting Zimmerman." I'm only a crj minor so I won't even try to claim expertise on the matter, Like maybe he was speaking colloquially and maybe I don't fully understand what "granting all legal rights", but I don't think so. Since the FL SYG grants you immunity from arrest, there was no violation. But arresting someone who you have probable cause committed a crime falls under the umbrella of due process. I don't understand why you would think otherwise. You just keep saying I'm wrong.... since we are throwing out credentials, i am a California bar accredited attorney and i say that you did not use the term due process correctly in the prior posts. i dont know what your professor said so i wont comment on that. but you cannot violate due process by not arresting someone, you can only violate it by arresting someone without probable cause. due process is owed to criminal defendants. So if as an officer watch a crime occur and don't arrest the guy they saw commit the crime. The officer has not violated due process? I literally was given that example in class as violation of due process. idn, maybe the guy's a kook... I don't think he's practiced in a number of years. EDIT: word usage aside, since you are an expert in the field can you explain how my interpretation of the SYG law in this post is incorrect. And if it is not, can you explain what use it serves being on the books ? + Show Spoiler +And to address your claim of oversimplification here is the exact lettering of the law that I take issue with:
.+ Show Spoiler +
if you use .013(3) to justify .012. You have basically given a person the ability to use deadly force with immunity from arrest and criminal prosecution as granted here in .032(1) + Show Spoiler + simply for "reasonably believes it is necessary to do so to prevent death or great bodily harm to himself"
Was that specific enough for you now? Please explain to me what use this law has in the penal code. In practice it has resulted in 168 unarmed people being killed. And in theory it gives private citizens easier access to deadly force(with no oversight) than trained sworn in police officers with heavy oversight
due process means the government cant do anything to you without following certain formalities (e.g., they cant arrest you without probable cause that you committed a crime). Fifth Amendment No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation. A similar due process provision is contained in the Fourteenth Amendment. i have never heard of a due process violation when the government fails to do anything. i dont understand why your professor would say that since the due process clauses only prevent action, not inaction. if that makes sense.
Yea fine I concede the point, can you answer my question about the SYG law though. I don't care to argue with you if you are an expert. Is my interpretation in that post incorrect? and if not what is the purpose of the law?
I don't see how its doing anything but preventing the truth from being known. Immunity from arrest if you meet .012 which basically does boil down to a reasonable belief of serious harm.
Edit- I need to leave but in all seriousness if you could PM an answer or something I'd appreciate it. I'm starting to think my professor was either misinformed or exhibiting bias when we talked about the case in class.
|
On March 25 2012 08:17 stokes17 wrote:Show nested quote +On March 25 2012 08:13 dAPhREAk wrote:On March 25 2012 08:04 stokes17 wrote:On March 25 2012 07:59 dAPhREAk wrote:On March 25 2012 07:56 stokes17 wrote:On March 25 2012 07:49 dAPhREAk wrote:On March 25 2012 07:47 stokes17 wrote:On March 25 2012 07:42 dAPhREAk wrote:On March 25 2012 07:38 stokes17 wrote:On March 25 2012 07:34 dAPhREAk wrote:
[quote]
i read the Florida jury instructions and posted them in this thread at least three times now. please provide me a cite to where the law says "deadly force is justified if you feel threatened." a legitimate cite (i.e., the Florida statute, the jury instructions, the Supreme Court), because that is what i have provided multiple times.
you are still not using the term due process correctly. you can google it if you want to know what it means.
i agree he should be arrested and a trial had. Due process is the legal requirement that the state must respect all of the legal rights that are owed to a person. Just because Zimmerman would have preferred there not to be a trial doesn't mean he and the general public are not entitled to one. The Sanford PD violated due process by not arresting Zimmerman after he admitted to killing Martin. I'm gonna go read the SYG law myself now, I've been working off of class notes up til now. EDIT: first line of wikipedia entry on the law -- A stand-your-ground law states that a person may use deadly force in self-defense when there is reasonable belief of a threat, without an obligation to retreat first. That's literally what I've been saying. if you are going to cite me wiki when i have been citing the actual law, i am not going to continue this conversation. bro you questioned my use of due process.....What do you what beside a dictionary definition? Which for the record I've been using correctly with the working assumption of the SYG law i had from class-- that it was an affirmative defense. That SYG line was taken from the Florida entry on the law. I just posted the actual wording of the law in an above post so i won't repost it. And while I had been misinformed(FL SYG Law actually grants immunity from prosecution, its not an affirmative defense). It certainly does not quell my fears that this law is abhorrent and needs to be stricken from the books. you have not been using due process correctly. and you are still oversimplifying the self defense law in Florida. Yes it is a correct usage, I was working under the understanding that SYG law in FL allows you justify a homicide charge. If that were the case, not arresting Zimmerman would have been a violation of due process. Since my professor had misinformed me, i was working under that assumption. My professor is PA bar accredited attorney and he literally said in class by his understanding of the SYG law the "police violated due process by not arresting Zimmerman." I'm only a crj minor so I won't even try to claim expertise on the matter, Like maybe he was speaking colloquially and maybe I don't fully understand what "granting all legal rights", but I don't think so. Since the FL SYG grants you immunity from arrest, there was no violation. But arresting someone who you have probable cause committed a crime falls under the umbrella of due process. I don't understand why you would think otherwise. You just keep saying I'm wrong.... since we are throwing out credentials, i am a California bar accredited attorney and i say that you did not use the term due process correctly in the prior posts. i dont know what your professor said so i wont comment on that. but you cannot violate due process by not arresting someone, you can only violate it by arresting someone without probable cause. due process is owed to criminal defendants. So if as an officer watch a crime occur and don't arrest the guy they saw commit the crime. The officer has not violated due process? I literally was given that example in class as violation of due process. idn, maybe the guy's a kook... I don't think he's practiced in a number of years. EDIT: word usage aside, since you are an expert in the field can you explain how my interpretation of the SYG law in this post is incorrect. And if it is not, can you explain what use it serves being on the books ? + Show Spoiler +And to address your claim of oversimplification here is the exact lettering of the law that I take issue with:
.+ Show Spoiler +
if you use .013(3) to justify .012. You have basically given a person the ability to use deadly force with immunity from arrest and criminal prosecution as granted here in .032(1) + Show Spoiler + simply for "reasonably believes it is necessary to do so to prevent death or great bodily harm to himself"
Was that specific enough for you now? Please explain to me what use this law has in the penal code. In practice it has resulted in 168 unarmed people being killed. And in theory it gives private citizens easier access to deadly force(with no oversight) than trained sworn in police officers with heavy oversight
due process means the government cant do anything to you without following certain formalities (e.g., they cant arrest you without probable cause that you committed a crime). Fifth Amendment No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation. A similar due process provision is contained in the Fourteenth Amendment. i have never heard of a due process violation when the government fails to do anything. i dont understand why your professor would say that since the due process clauses only prevent action, not inaction. if that makes sense. Yea fine I concede the point, can you answer my question about the SYG law though. I don't care to argue with you if you are an expert. Is my interpretation in that post incorrect? and if not what is the purpose of the law? I don't see how its doing anything but preventing the truth from being known. Immunity from arrest if you meet .012 which basically does boil down to a reasonable belief of serious harm. Edit- I need to leave but in all seriousness if you could PM an answer or something I'd appreciate it. I'm starting to think my professor was either misinformed or exhibiting bias when we talked about the case in class.
there have been so many edits that i got confused. can you point me to which one you are referring to and i will take a look at it?
i wonder if your professor is talking about a 42 U.S.C. 1983 deprivation of due process claim.
http://www.constitution.org/brief/forsythe_42-1983.htm
|
Basically, without the SYG provision, defending yourself could bankrupt you or otherwise ruin your life because you would have to defend yourself in court at ruinous expense. It isn't much of a right to self-defense if you can only exercise it if you're rich enough to hire a fancy lawyer to defend you. There are such things as overzealous prosecutors who suck up to howling mobs. See "duke lacrosse players rape case" or "Crystal Mangum" or "Nifong".
|
On March 25 2012 08:20 dAPhREAk wrote:Show nested quote +On March 25 2012 08:17 stokes17 wrote:On March 25 2012 08:13 dAPhREAk wrote:On March 25 2012 08:04 stokes17 wrote:On March 25 2012 07:59 dAPhREAk wrote:On March 25 2012 07:56 stokes17 wrote:On March 25 2012 07:49 dAPhREAk wrote:On March 25 2012 07:47 stokes17 wrote:On March 25 2012 07:42 dAPhREAk wrote:On March 25 2012 07:38 stokes17 wrote:
[quote]
Due process is the legal requirement that the state must respect all of the legal rights that are owed to a person.
Just because Zimmerman would have preferred there not to be a trial doesn't mean he and the general public are not entitled to one. The Sanford PD violated due process by not arresting Zimmerman after he admitted to killing Martin.
I'm gonna go read the SYG law myself now, I've been working off of class notes up til now.
EDIT: first line of wikipedia entry on the law -- A stand-your-ground law states that a person may use deadly force in self-defense when there is reasonable belief of a threat, without an obligation to retreat first.
That's literally what I've been saying. if you are going to cite me wiki when i have been citing the actual law, i am not going to continue this conversation. bro you questioned my use of due process.....What do you what beside a dictionary definition? Which for the record I've been using correctly with the working assumption of the SYG law i had from class-- that it was an affirmative defense. That SYG line was taken from the Florida entry on the law. I just posted the actual wording of the law in an above post so i won't repost it. And while I had been misinformed(FL SYG Law actually grants immunity from prosecution, its not an affirmative defense). It certainly does not quell my fears that this law is abhorrent and needs to be stricken from the books. you have not been using due process correctly. and you are still oversimplifying the self defense law in Florida. Yes it is a correct usage, I was working under the understanding that SYG law in FL allows you justify a homicide charge. If that were the case, not arresting Zimmerman would have been a violation of due process. Since my professor had misinformed me, i was working under that assumption. My professor is PA bar accredited attorney and he literally said in class by his understanding of the SYG law the "police violated due process by not arresting Zimmerman." I'm only a crj minor so I won't even try to claim expertise on the matter, Like maybe he was speaking colloquially and maybe I don't fully understand what "granting all legal rights", but I don't think so. Since the FL SYG grants you immunity from arrest, there was no violation. But arresting someone who you have probable cause committed a crime falls under the umbrella of due process. I don't understand why you would think otherwise. You just keep saying I'm wrong.... since we are throwing out credentials, i am a California bar accredited attorney and i say that you did not use the term due process correctly in the prior posts. i dont know what your professor said so i wont comment on that. but you cannot violate due process by not arresting someone, you can only violate it by arresting someone without probable cause. due process is owed to criminal defendants. So if as an officer watch a crime occur and don't arrest the guy they saw commit the crime. The officer has not violated due process? I literally was given that example in class as violation of due process. idn, maybe the guy's a kook... I don't think he's practiced in a number of years. EDIT: word usage aside, since you are an expert in the field can you explain how my interpretation of the SYG law in this post is incorrect. And if it is not, can you explain what use it serves being on the books ? + Show Spoiler +And to address your claim of oversimplification here is the exact lettering of the law that I take issue with:
.+ Show Spoiler +
if you use .013(3) to justify .012. You have basically given a person the ability to use deadly force with immunity from arrest and criminal prosecution as granted here in .032(1) + Show Spoiler + simply for "reasonably believes it is necessary to do so to prevent death or great bodily harm to himself"
Was that specific enough for you now? Please explain to me what use this law has in the penal code. In practice it has resulted in 168 unarmed people being killed. And in theory it gives private citizens easier access to deadly force(with no oversight) than trained sworn in police officers with heavy oversight
due process means the government cant do anything to you without following certain formalities (e.g., they cant arrest you without probable cause that you committed a crime). Fifth Amendment No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation. A similar due process provision is contained in the Fourteenth Amendment. i have never heard of a due process violation when the government fails to do anything. i dont understand why your professor would say that since the due process clauses only prevent action, not inaction. if that makes sense. Yea fine I concede the point, can you answer my question about the SYG law though. I don't care to argue with you if you are an expert. Is my interpretation in that post incorrect? and if not what is the purpose of the law? I don't see how its doing anything but preventing the truth from being known. Immunity from arrest if you meet .012 which basically does boil down to a reasonable belief of serious harm. Edit- I need to leave but in all seriousness if you could PM an answer or something I'd appreciate it. I'm starting to think my professor was either misinformed or exhibiting bias when we talked about the case in class. there have been so many edits that i got confused. can you point me to which one you are referring to and i will take a look at it? i wonder if your professor is talking about a 42 U.S.C. 1983 deprivation of due process claim. http://www.constitution.org/brief/forsythe_42-1983.htm
He emailed me back saying the victim of a crime alive or dead has as much right to due process being served as the accused does. So idn...
Here comes the giant quote, hopefully it comes out right. My question follows "addressing oversimplification"
On March 25 2012 07:56 stokes17 wrote:Show nested quote +On March 25 2012 07:49 dAPhREAk wrote:On March 25 2012 07:47 stokes17 wrote:On March 25 2012 07:42 dAPhREAk wrote:On March 25 2012 07:38 stokes17 wrote:On March 25 2012 07:34 dAPhREAk wrote:On March 25 2012 07:29 stokes17 wrote:On March 25 2012 06:56 dAPhREAk wrote:On March 25 2012 06:41 stokes17 wrote:On March 25 2012 06:15 dAPhREAk wrote:
[quote]
governors dont pass laws.
yes, lets kill everyone accused of a crime. the judicial process is expensive and tedious.
yes, lets take the law into our own hands. when we dont agree with the laws, we make our own. thats how a perfect democracy works.
thanks for your contributions. =D The funny thing is the Sanford police department (and the DA) did exactly what you are making fun of. They decided the judicial process was too expensive and didn't charge zimmerman even though he admitted to shooting Martin. They literally find a guy with a bloody nose and smoking gun standing over a dead boy half his size. He goes "i felt threatened it was self defense" The cops go "HOKAY!" and let him go. Let's let all murderers free as long as they "felt threatened." That is a breach of protocol at the least and obstruction of justice at the most (combined with the apparent attempt to cover the incident up, leads me to lean towards obstruction of justice) The Sanford Police department took the law into their own hands and judged Zimmerman to be innocent. They did not give Martin's family due process which they are constitutionally entitled to. Its no wonder the DA asked to be relived of the case and the Police Chief resigned. I mean you use hyperbole in your example, I just have to point to what has fucking occurred in Florida over the past 7 years as a result of this absurd Stand your ground law. they decided there wasnt enough evidence to charge him of a crime based on constitutional principles (i.e., probable cause). i disagree with that decision, but i dont know all the facts. you keep oversimplifying all the issues. sigh, another person using due process incorrectly. are you the person i corrected earlier in this thread? edit: it wasnt you. it was someone else. zimmerman is entitled to due process, not the family. see my previous post. http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=322664¤tpage=70#1384 Have you actually read the SYG law? It does actually say that deadly force is justified if you feel threatened. You are allowed to "stand your ground." That is the wording and intent of the law And there is no decision to arrest Zimmerman. If the Police have probable cause to believe you committed a crime you are arrested. Zimmerman was found near the dead body, bloody, with a gun. The police do not decide if a homicide is justified. To prove justifiable homicide you have to 1st admit to the crime, which Zimmerman did, and then you have to prove that your defense is sound. The burden is on the defendant to demonstrate he acted in self defense. When I said due process was violated I meant that Zimmerman was not required to prove his defense in a court of law. Instead no charges were filed and he was allowed to go free. Again, A justifiable homicide is still a homicide and the accused has to be arrested if there is probable cause he committed the crime. It is up to a jury of his peers to determine if his defense is sound. Imo, trying to sweep this case under the rug by not charging Zimmerman is a breach of due process, and as an extension obstruction of justice. I think the fact that the Police chief resigned and the DA transferred the case support my assertion that due process was violated. Just because due process was violated in Zimmerman's favor doesn't mean it wasn't violated. i read the Florida jury instructions and posted them in this thread at least three times now. please provide me a cite to where the law says "deadly force is justified if you feel threatened." a legitimate cite (i.e., the Florida statute, the jury instructions, the Supreme Court), because that is what i have provided multiple times. you are still not using the term due process correctly. you can google it if you want to know what it means. i agree he should be arrested and a trial had. Due process is the legal requirement that the state must respect all of the legal rights that are owed to a person. Just because Zimmerman would have preferred there not to be a trial doesn't mean he and the general public are not entitled to one. The Sanford PD violated due process by not arresting Zimmerman after he admitted to killing Martin. I'm gonna go read the SYG law myself now, I've been working off of class notes up til now. EDIT: first line of wikipedia entry on the law -- A stand-your-ground law states that a person may use deadly force in self-defense when there is reasonable belief of a threat, without an obligation to retreat first. That's literally what I've been saying. if you are going to cite me wiki when i have been citing the actual law, i am not going to continue this conversation. bro you questioned my use of due process.....What do you what beside a dictionary definition? Which for the record I've been using correctly with the working assumption of the SYG law i had from class-- that it was an affirmative defense. That SYG line was taken from the Florida entry on the law. I just posted the actual wording of the law in an above post so i won't repost it. And while I had been misinformed(FL SYG Law actually grants immunity from prosecution, its not an affirmative defense). It certainly does not quell my fears that this law is abhorrent and needs to be stricken from the books. you have not been using due process correctly. and you are still oversimplifying the self defense law in Florida. Yes it is a correct usage, I was working under the understanding that SYG law in FL allows you justify a homicide charge. If that were the case, not arresting Zimmerman would have been a violation of due process. Since my professor had misinformed me, i was working under that assumption. My professor is PA bar accredited attorney and he literally said in class by his understanding of the SYG law the "police violated due process by not arresting Zimmerman." I'm only a crj minor so I won't even try to claim expertise on the matter, Like maybe he was speaking colloquially and maybe I don't fully understand what "granting all legal rights", but I don't think so. Since the FL SYG grants you immunity from arrest, there was no violation. But arresting someone who you have probable cause committed a crime falls under the umbrella of due process. I don't understand why you would think otherwise. You just keep saying I'm wrong.... And to address your claim of oversimplification here is the exact lettering of the law that I take issue with: . + Show Spoiler +776.012 Use of force in defense of person.—A person is justified in using force, except deadly force, against another when and to the extent that the person reasonably believes that such conduct is necessary to defend himself or herself or another against the other’s imminent use of unlawful force. However, a person is justified in the use of deadly force and does not have a duty to retreat if:
(1) He or she reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the imminent commission of a forcible felony; or
(2) Under those circumstances permitted pursuant to s. 776.013.
776.013 Home protection; use of deadly force; presumption of fear of death or great bodily harm.—
(1) A person is presumed to have held a reasonable fear of imminent peril of death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another when using defensive force that is intended or likely to cause death or great bodily harm to another if:
(a) The person against whom the defensive force was used was in the process of unlawfully and forcefully entering, or had unlawfully and forcibly entered, a dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle, or if that person had removed or was attempting to remove another against that person’s will from the dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle; and
(b) The person who uses defensive force knew or had reason to believe that an unlawful and forcible entry or unlawful and forcible act was occurring or had occurred.
(2) The presumption set forth in subsection (1) does not apply if:
(a) The person against whom the defensive force is used has the right to be in or is a lawful resident of the dwelling, residence, or vehicle, such as an owner, lessee, or titleholder, and there is not an injunction for protection from domestic violence or a written pretrial supervision order of no contact against that person; or
(b) The person or persons sought to be removed is a child or grandchild, or is otherwise in the lawful custody or under the lawful guardianship of, the person against whom the defensive force is used; or
(c) The person who uses defensive force is engaged in an unlawful activity or is using the dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle to further an unlawful activity; or
(d) The person against whom the defensive force is used is a law enforcement officer, as defined in s. 943.10(14), who enters or attempts to enter a dwelling, residence, or vehicle 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 entering or attempting to enter was a law enforcement officer.
(3) A person who is not engaged in an unlawful activity and who is attacked in any other place where he or she has a right to be has no duty to retreat and has the right to stand his or her ground and meet force with force, including deadly force if he or she reasonably believes it is necessary to do so to prevent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the commission of a forcible felony. if you use .013(3) to justify .012. You have basically given a person the ability to use deadly force with immunity from arrest and criminal prosecution as granted here in .032(1) + Show Spoiler +(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. simply for "reasonably believes it is necessary to do so to prevent death or great bodily harm to himself" Was that specific enough for you now? Please explain to me what use this law has in the penal code. In practice it has resulted in 168 unarmed people being killed. And in theory it gives private citizens easier access to deadly force(with no oversight) than trained sworn in police officers with heavy oversight
|
On March 25 2012 08:23 Freddybear wrote:
Basically, without the SYG provision, defending yourself could bankrupt you or otherwise ruin your life because you would have to defend yourself in court at ruinous expense. It isn't much of a right to self-defense if you can only exercise it if you're rich enough to hire a fancy lawyer to defend you. There are such things as overzealous prosecutors who suck up to howling mobs. See "duke lacrosse players rape case" or "Crystal Mangum" or "Nifong".
Aren't Nifong and duke lacrosse rape case are the same thing? Didn't he get disbarred as well, so I'm sure its not standard behavior.
I was under the impression that case attrition is about 50% for felonies. That would certainly point to non zealousness in prosecution.
And isn't SYG an affirmative defense in most states (not FL though) so it wouldn't prevent you from standing trial-- aka ruining your reputation and costing all the money.
I'm still not convinced SYG serve any purpose. Either in theory or in practice.
|
Nifong only ended up being disbarred because the duke players had rich parents who could afford fancy lawyers.
And this article about "affirmative defense" is relevant:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Affirmative_defense
"A clear illustration of an affirmative defense is self defense.[3] In its simplest form, a criminal defendant may be exonerated if he can demonstrate that he had an honest and reasonable belief that another's use of force was unlawful and that the defendant's conduct was necessary to protect himself."
Without the SYG provision, the defendant would be put in the position of having to prove that he had no means of escaping harm except the use of deadly force. With that provision, the burden remains on the prosecutor.
|
On March 25 2012 08:31 stokes17 wrote:And to address your claim of oversimplification here is the exact lettering of the law that I take issue with: . + Show Spoiler +776.012 Use of force in defense of person.—A person is justified in using force, except deadly force, against another when and to the extent that the person reasonably believes that such conduct is necessary to defend himself or herself or another against the other’s imminent use of unlawful force. However, a person is justified in the use of deadly force and does not have a duty to retreat if:
(1) He or she reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the imminent commission of a forcible felony; or
(2) Under those circumstances permitted pursuant to s. 776.013.
776.013 Home protection; use of deadly force; presumption of fear of death or great bodily harm.—
(1) A person is presumed to have held a reasonable fear of imminent peril of death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another when using defensive force that is intended or likely to cause death or great bodily harm to another if:
(a) The person against whom the defensive force was used was in the process of unlawfully and forcefully entering, or had unlawfully and forcibly entered, a dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle, or if that person had removed or was attempting to remove another against that person’s will from the dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle; and
(b) The person who uses defensive force knew or had reason to believe that an unlawful and forcible entry or unlawful and forcible act was occurring or had occurred.
(2) The presumption set forth in subsection (1) does not apply if:
(a) The person against whom the defensive force is used has the right to be in or is a lawful resident of the dwelling, residence, or vehicle, such as an owner, lessee, or titleholder, and there is not an injunction for protection from domestic violence or a written pretrial supervision order of no contact against that person; or
(b) The person or persons sought to be removed is a child or grandchild, or is otherwise in the lawful custody or under the lawful guardianship of, the person against whom the defensive force is used; or
(c) The person who uses defensive force is engaged in an unlawful activity or is using the dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle to further an unlawful activity; or
(d) The person against whom the defensive force is used is a law enforcement officer, as defined in s. 943.10(14), who enters or attempts to enter a dwelling, residence, or vehicle 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 entering or attempting to enter was a law enforcement officer.
(3) A person who is not engaged in an unlawful activity and who is attacked in any other place where he or she has a right to be has no duty to retreat and has the right to stand his or her ground and meet force with force, including deadly force if he or she reasonably believes it is necessary to do so to prevent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the commission of a forcible felony. if you use .013(3) to justify .012. You have basically given a person the ability to use deadly force with immunity from arrest and criminal prosecution as granted here in .032(1) + Show Spoiler +(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. simply for "reasonably believes it is necessary to do so to prevent death or great bodily harm to himself" Was that specific enough for you now? Please explain to me what use this law has in the penal code. In practice it has resulted in 168 unarmed people being killed. And in theory it gives private citizens easier access to deadly force(with no oversight) than trained sworn in police officers with heavy oversight
If I understand you correctly, you are saying that if you meet the requirements of the self-defense statute (.013(3) and .012)), you are immune from arrest/prosecution. That appears to be a correct reading of the statutes.
However, there is nothing saying that the police have to take your word for it. If the police do not believe your story and they have probable cause that you committed an unjustified killing irrespective of your claim of self defense, they can still arrest you and try you in court. I think the main effect of this statute is putting the burden on the prosecution to come up with evidence of an unjustified killing before they arrest you, rather than arresting you first (after sufficient evidence of a killing) and then having you defend yourself in court (i.e., an affirmative defense of self-defense that you have to prove).
I have to caveat this though, because in California this isn’t how it works, so this is news to me.
|
On March 25 2012 08:49 Freddybear wrote:Nifong only ended up being disbarred because the duke players had rich parents who could afford fancy lawyers. And this article about "affirmative defense" is relevant: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Affirmative_defense"A clear illustration of an affirmative defense is self defense.[3] In its simplest form, a criminal defendant may be exonerated if he can demonstrate that he had an honest and reasonable belief that another's use of force was unlawful and that the defendant's conduct was necessary to protect himself." Without the SYG provision, the defendant would be put in the position of having to prove that he had no means of escaping harm except the use of deadly force. With that provision, the burden remains on the prosecutor.
Well yea, shouldn't you have to prove you acted in self defense if your claiming you acted in self defense when you killed somebody? I don't see a problem with that at all.
Furthermore the Florida law does not put this burden on the prosecutor because the law prevents you from even being arrested and formally charged in the first place.
It can be really easy to prove self defense- i was in my house and I dude broke in with an axe and came at me so I shot him. It can also be really hard - I chased an unarmed 140 lb kid with my gun, then he attacked me and I killed him. Either way it should be up to a jury to evaluate the veracity of the claim, imo.
|
On March 25 2012 08:34 stokes17 wrote:Show nested quote +On March 25 2012 08:23 Freddybear wrote:
Basically, without the SYG provision, defending yourself could bankrupt you or otherwise ruin your life because you would have to defend yourself in court at ruinous expense. It isn't much of a right to self-defense if you can only exercise it if you're rich enough to hire a fancy lawyer to defend you. There are such things as overzealous prosecutors who suck up to howling mobs. See "duke lacrosse players rape case" or "Crystal Mangum" or "Nifong". Aren't Nifong and duke lacrosse rape case are the same thing? Didn't he get disbarred as well, so I'm sure its not standard behavior. I was under the impression that case attrition is about 50% for felonies. That would certainly point to non zealousness in prosecution. And isn't SYG an affirmative defense in most states (not FL though) so it wouldn't prevent you from standing trial-- aka ruining your reputation and costing all the money. I'm still not convinced SYG serve any purpose. Either in theory or in practice.
It could very well be that the provision don't serve much of a purpose. The SYG laws are a fairly recent occurrence. Regular self-defense laws seemed to do fine before 2005. There are several people in law enforcement and prosecution that have come out before saying they don't support the provisions.
In case you are interested, there is an article here about the possible effect of the laws. It's where I pulled the quote of the then Chief of Police who said it was "encouraging people to possibly use deadly physical force where it shouldn't be used'' from, though he originally gave that quote to the New York Times.
http://www.tampabay.com/news/publicsafety/crime/article1128317.ece
This isn't realated to the Zimmerman case though for anyone who isn't interested, just a piece about the effect of the laws from 2005 to 2010 on justifiable homicides.
|
On March 25 2012 08:51 dAPhREAk wrote:Show nested quote +On March 25 2012 08:31 stokes17 wrote:And to address your claim of oversimplification here is the exact lettering of the law that I take issue with: . + Show Spoiler +776.012 Use of force in defense of person.—A person is justified in using force, except deadly force, against another when and to the extent that the person reasonably believes that such conduct is necessary to defend himself or herself or another against the other’s imminent use of unlawful force. However, a person is justified in the use of deadly force and does not have a duty to retreat if:
(1) He or she reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the imminent commission of a forcible felony; or
(2) Under those circumstances permitted pursuant to s. 776.013.
776.013 Home protection; use of deadly force; presumption of fear of death or great bodily harm.—
(1) A person is presumed to have held a reasonable fear of imminent peril of death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another when using defensive force that is intended or likely to cause death or great bodily harm to another if:
(a) The person against whom the defensive force was used was in the process of unlawfully and forcefully entering, or had unlawfully and forcibly entered, a dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle, or if that person had removed or was attempting to remove another against that person’s will from the dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle; and
(b) The person who uses defensive force knew or had reason to believe that an unlawful and forcible entry or unlawful and forcible act was occurring or had occurred.
(2) The presumption set forth in subsection (1) does not apply if:
(a) The person against whom the defensive force is used has the right to be in or is a lawful resident of the dwelling, residence, or vehicle, such as an owner, lessee, or titleholder, and there is not an injunction for protection from domestic violence or a written pretrial supervision order of no contact against that person; or
(b) The person or persons sought to be removed is a child or grandchild, or is otherwise in the lawful custody or under the lawful guardianship of, the person against whom the defensive force is used; or
(c) The person who uses defensive force is engaged in an unlawful activity or is using the dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle to further an unlawful activity; or
(d) The person against whom the defensive force is used is a law enforcement officer, as defined in s. 943.10(14), who enters or attempts to enter a dwelling, residence, or vehicle 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 entering or attempting to enter was a law enforcement officer.
(3) A person who is not engaged in an unlawful activity and who is attacked in any other place where he or she has a right to be has no duty to retreat and has the right to stand his or her ground and meet force with force, including deadly force if he or she reasonably believes it is necessary to do so to prevent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the commission of a forcible felony. if you use .013(3) to justify .012. You have basically given a person the ability to use deadly force with immunity from arrest and criminal prosecution as granted here in .032(1) + Show Spoiler +(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. simply for "reasonably believes it is necessary to do so to prevent death or great bodily harm to himself" Was that specific enough for you now? Please explain to me what use this law has in the penal code. In practice it has resulted in 168 unarmed people being killed. And in theory it gives private citizens easier access to deadly force(with no oversight) than trained sworn in police officers with heavy oversight If I understand you correctly, you are saying that if you meet the requirements of the self-defense statute (.013(3) and .012)), you are immune from arrest/prosecution. That appears to be a correct reading of the statutes. However, there is nothing saying that the police have to take your word for it. If the police do not believe your story and they have probable cause that you committed an unjustified killing irrespective of your claim of self defense, they can still arrest you and try you in court. I think the main effect of this statute is putting the burden on the prosecution to come up with evidence of an unjustified killing before they arrest you, rather than arresting you first (after sufficient evidence of a killing) and then having you defend yourself in court (i.e., an affirmative defense of self-defense that you have to prove). I have to caveat this though, because in California this isn’t how it works, so this is news to me.
Seems to me like the law is allowing the police to pick and choose which murders they want to bother investigating. Because imo Zimmerman's story was pretty weak (complete shit) and the police took his word for it.
Do you support such a statute? and if so could you explain to me why it isn't as awful as I believe it to be. (assuming you aren't a person who supports awful things ^^)
I simply don't see how it serves justice. MAYBE in a home invasion situation only would I want to give a person the amount of protection granted by the Florida SYG law. But if you kill someone in public, I certainly think its on you to defend your actions.
|
On March 25 2012 07:31 liberal wrote:
@kickboxer
I wouldn't want to live in a nation where someone who is getting beaten is forced to just take it or risk prosecution. Defending yourself is a basic human right in my opinion. I also have no problem at all with escalation of force in a moment of self defense. You can't predict an attackers actions, you don't know if they are gonna bruise you or kill you, there is adrenaline running through your system, neither party is thinking straight, and someone in that situation should not be punished for inaccurately assessing the risk or not responding in the "legally proportional" way. A victims right to self defense supersedes the attackers right to not be harmed.
So, do you feel that being followed and harassed by an older, creepy stranger is enough cause to 'defend' oneself, i.e. throw a punch? Even after you tried to runaway?
All I'm saying is that it's unclear who escalated the situation to the point of violence, and what justifies self-defense.
If all I were doing was walking home with a bag of skittles, and someone chased me after I explicitly made it clear to leave me alone, I'd be terrified.
Maybe Trayvon saw Zimmerman had a gun holstered in his pants when he approached his car. That's the problem, no one knows.
|
On March 25 2012 09:00 stokes17 wrote:Show nested quote +On March 25 2012 08:51 dAPhREAk wrote:On March 25 2012 08:31 stokes17 wrote:And to address your claim of oversimplification here is the exact lettering of the law that I take issue with: . + Show Spoiler +776.012 Use of force in defense of person.—A person is justified in using force, except deadly force, against another when and to the extent that the person reasonably believes that such conduct is necessary to defend himself or herself or another against the other’s imminent use of unlawful force. However, a person is justified in the use of deadly force and does not have a duty to retreat if:
(1) He or she reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the imminent commission of a forcible felony; or
(2) Under those circumstances permitted pursuant to s. 776.013.
776.013 Home protection; use of deadly force; presumption of fear of death or great bodily harm.—
(1) A person is presumed to have held a reasonable fear of imminent peril of death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another when using defensive force that is intended or likely to cause death or great bodily harm to another if:
(a) The person against whom the defensive force was used was in the process of unlawfully and forcefully entering, or had unlawfully and forcibly entered, a dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle, or if that person had removed or was attempting to remove another against that person’s will from the dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle; and
(b) The person who uses defensive force knew or had reason to believe that an unlawful and forcible entry or unlawful and forcible act was occurring or had occurred.
(2) The presumption set forth in subsection (1) does not apply if:
(a) The person against whom the defensive force is used has the right to be in or is a lawful resident of the dwelling, residence, or vehicle, such as an owner, lessee, or titleholder, and there is not an injunction for protection from domestic violence or a written pretrial supervision order of no contact against that person; or
(b) The person or persons sought to be removed is a child or grandchild, or is otherwise in the lawful custody or under the lawful guardianship of, the person against whom the defensive force is used; or
(c) The person who uses defensive force is engaged in an unlawful activity or is using the dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle to further an unlawful activity; or
(d) The person against whom the defensive force is used is a law enforcement officer, as defined in s. 943.10(14), who enters or attempts to enter a dwelling, residence, or vehicle 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 entering or attempting to enter was a law enforcement officer.
(3) A person who is not engaged in an unlawful activity and who is attacked in any other place where he or she has a right to be has no duty to retreat and has the right to stand his or her ground and meet force with force, including deadly force if he or she reasonably believes it is necessary to do so to prevent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the commission of a forcible felony. if you use .013(3) to justify .012. You have basically given a person the ability to use deadly force with immunity from arrest and criminal prosecution as granted here in .032(1) + Show Spoiler +(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. simply for "reasonably believes it is necessary to do so to prevent death or great bodily harm to himself" Was that specific enough for you now? Please explain to me what use this law has in the penal code. In practice it has resulted in 168 unarmed people being killed. And in theory it gives private citizens easier access to deadly force(with no oversight) than trained sworn in police officers with heavy oversight If I understand you correctly, you are saying that if you meet the requirements of the self-defense statute (.013(3) and .012)), you are immune from arrest/prosecution. That appears to be a correct reading of the statutes. However, there is nothing saying that the police have to take your word for it. If the police do not believe your story and they have probable cause that you committed an unjustified killing irrespective of your claim of self defense, they can still arrest you and try you in court. I think the main effect of this statute is putting the burden on the prosecution to come up with evidence of an unjustified killing before they arrest you, rather than arresting you first (after sufficient evidence of a killing) and then having you defend yourself in court (i.e., an affirmative defense of self-defense that you have to prove). I have to caveat this though, because in California this isn’t how it works, so this is news to me. Seems to me like the law is allowing the police to pick and choose which murders they want to bother investigating. Because imo Zimmerman's story was pretty weak (complete shit) and the police took his word for it. Do you support such a statute? and if so could you explain to me why it isn't as awful as I believe it to be. (assuming you aren't a person who supports awful things ^^) I simply don't see how it serves justice. MAYBE in a home invasion situation only would I want to give a person the amount of protection granted by the Florida SYG law. But if you kill someone in public, I certainly think its on you to defend your actions.
i still think there was enough to arrest him despite his claim of self defense.
i do not support statutes that dont require you to retreat. you should always be required to retreat if you can safely do so. i dont give a fuck if your ego is hurt, which is what these laws protect in my opinion. walk away, call the police and have them arrested for assault, battery, whatever they did. (of course, if you cant walk away safely that is a different story.) as for immunities, i dont really know enough to make an informed opinion. i think the defendant should have to prove their self defense theory in a court of law. anything that takes it away from the jury, i dont really like.
|
On March 25 2012 09:07 dAPhREAk wrote:Show nested quote +On March 25 2012 09:00 stokes17 wrote:On March 25 2012 08:51 dAPhREAk wrote:On March 25 2012 08:31 stokes17 wrote:And to address your claim of oversimplification here is the exact lettering of the law that I take issue with: . + Show Spoiler +776.012 Use of force in defense of person.—A person is justified in using force, except deadly force, against another when and to the extent that the person reasonably believes that such conduct is necessary to defend himself or herself or another against the other’s imminent use of unlawful force. However, a person is justified in the use of deadly force and does not have a duty to retreat if:
(1) He or she reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the imminent commission of a forcible felony; or
(2) Under those circumstances permitted pursuant to s. 776.013.
776.013 Home protection; use of deadly force; presumption of fear of death or great bodily harm.—
(1) A person is presumed to have held a reasonable fear of imminent peril of death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another when using defensive force that is intended or likely to cause death or great bodily harm to another if:
(a) The person against whom the defensive force was used was in the process of unlawfully and forcefully entering, or had unlawfully and forcibly entered, a dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle, or if that person had removed or was attempting to remove another against that person’s will from the dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle; and
(b) The person who uses defensive force knew or had reason to believe that an unlawful and forcible entry or unlawful and forcible act was occurring or had occurred.
(2) The presumption set forth in subsection (1) does not apply if:
(a) The person against whom the defensive force is used has the right to be in or is a lawful resident of the dwelling, residence, or vehicle, such as an owner, lessee, or titleholder, and there is not an injunction for protection from domestic violence or a written pretrial supervision order of no contact against that person; or
(b) The person or persons sought to be removed is a child or grandchild, or is otherwise in the lawful custody or under the lawful guardianship of, the person against whom the defensive force is used; or
(c) The person who uses defensive force is engaged in an unlawful activity or is using the dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle to further an unlawful activity; or
(d) The person against whom the defensive force is used is a law enforcement officer, as defined in s. 943.10(14), who enters or attempts to enter a dwelling, residence, or vehicle 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 entering or attempting to enter was a law enforcement officer.
(3) A person who is not engaged in an unlawful activity and who is attacked in any other place where he or she has a right to be has no duty to retreat and has the right to stand his or her ground and meet force with force, including deadly force if he or she reasonably believes it is necessary to do so to prevent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the commission of a forcible felony. if you use .013(3) to justify .012. You have basically given a person the ability to use deadly force with immunity from arrest and criminal prosecution as granted here in .032(1) + Show Spoiler +(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. simply for "reasonably believes it is necessary to do so to prevent death or great bodily harm to himself" Was that specific enough for you now? Please explain to me what use this law has in the penal code. In practice it has resulted in 168 unarmed people being killed. And in theory it gives private citizens easier access to deadly force(with no oversight) than trained sworn in police officers with heavy oversight If I understand you correctly, you are saying that if you meet the requirements of the self-defense statute (.013(3) and .012)), you are immune from arrest/prosecution. That appears to be a correct reading of the statutes. However, there is nothing saying that the police have to take your word for it. If the police do not believe your story and they have probable cause that you committed an unjustified killing irrespective of your claim of self defense, they can still arrest you and try you in court. I think the main effect of this statute is putting the burden on the prosecution to come up with evidence of an unjustified killing before they arrest you, rather than arresting you first (after sufficient evidence of a killing) and then having you defend yourself in court (i.e., an affirmative defense of self-defense that you have to prove). I have to caveat this though, because in California this isn’t how it works, so this is news to me. Seems to me like the law is allowing the police to pick and choose which murders they want to bother investigating. Because imo Zimmerman's story was pretty weak (complete shit) and the police took his word for it. Do you support such a statute? and if so could you explain to me why it isn't as awful as I believe it to be. (assuming you aren't a person who supports awful things ^^) I simply don't see how it serves justice. MAYBE in a home invasion situation only would I want to give a person the amount of protection granted by the Florida SYG law. But if you kill someone in public, I certainly think its on you to defend your actions. i still think there was enough to arrest him despite his claim of self defense. i do not support statutes that dont require you to retreat. you should always be required to retreat if you can safely do so. i dont give a fuck if your ego is hurt, which is what these laws protect in my opinion. walk away, call the police and have them arrested for assault, battery, whatever they did. (of course, if you cant walk away safely that is a different story.) as for immunities, i dont really know enough to make an informed opinion. i think the defendant should have to prove their self defense theory in a court of law. anything that takes it away from the jury, i dont really like.
So we were in agreement at a conceptual level the whole time? You just HAD to pick at every tiny error in my posts?
You certainly quelled any possible doubts I had as to whether or not you are actually a lawyer!! - :D
|
On March 25 2012 09:09 stokes17 wrote:Show nested quote +On March 25 2012 09:07 dAPhREAk wrote:On March 25 2012 09:00 stokes17 wrote:On March 25 2012 08:51 dAPhREAk wrote:On March 25 2012 08:31 stokes17 wrote:And to address your claim of oversimplification here is the exact lettering of the law that I take issue with: . + Show Spoiler +776.012 Use of force in defense of person.—A person is justified in using force, except deadly force, against another when and to the extent that the person reasonably believes that such conduct is necessary to defend himself or herself or another against the other’s imminent use of unlawful force. However, a person is justified in the use of deadly force and does not have a duty to retreat if:
(1) He or she reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the imminent commission of a forcible felony; or
(2) Under those circumstances permitted pursuant to s. 776.013.
776.013 Home protection; use of deadly force; presumption of fear of death or great bodily harm.—
(1) A person is presumed to have held a reasonable fear of imminent peril of death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another when using defensive force that is intended or likely to cause death or great bodily harm to another if:
(a) The person against whom the defensive force was used was in the process of unlawfully and forcefully entering, or had unlawfully and forcibly entered, a dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle, or if that person had removed or was attempting to remove another against that person’s will from the dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle; and
(b) The person who uses defensive force knew or had reason to believe that an unlawful and forcible entry or unlawful and forcible act was occurring or had occurred.
(2) The presumption set forth in subsection (1) does not apply if:
(a) The person against whom the defensive force is used has the right to be in or is a lawful resident of the dwelling, residence, or vehicle, such as an owner, lessee, or titleholder, and there is not an injunction for protection from domestic violence or a written pretrial supervision order of no contact against that person; or
(b) The person or persons sought to be removed is a child or grandchild, or is otherwise in the lawful custody or under the lawful guardianship of, the person against whom the defensive force is used; or
(c) The person who uses defensive force is engaged in an unlawful activity or is using the dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle to further an unlawful activity; or
(d) The person against whom the defensive force is used is a law enforcement officer, as defined in s. 943.10(14), who enters or attempts to enter a dwelling, residence, or vehicle 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 entering or attempting to enter was a law enforcement officer.
(3) A person who is not engaged in an unlawful activity and who is attacked in any other place where he or she has a right to be has no duty to retreat and has the right to stand his or her ground and meet force with force, including deadly force if he or she reasonably believes it is necessary to do so to prevent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the commission of a forcible felony. if you use .013(3) to justify .012. You have basically given a person the ability to use deadly force with immunity from arrest and criminal prosecution as granted here in .032(1) + Show Spoiler +(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. simply for "reasonably believes it is necessary to do so to prevent death or great bodily harm to himself" Was that specific enough for you now? Please explain to me what use this law has in the penal code. In practice it has resulted in 168 unarmed people being killed. And in theory it gives private citizens easier access to deadly force(with no oversight) than trained sworn in police officers with heavy oversight If I understand you correctly, you are saying that if you meet the requirements of the self-defense statute (.013(3) and .012)), you are immune from arrest/prosecution. That appears to be a correct reading of the statutes. However, there is nothing saying that the police have to take your word for it. If the police do not believe your story and they have probable cause that you committed an unjustified killing irrespective of your claim of self defense, they can still arrest you and try you in court. I think the main effect of this statute is putting the burden on the prosecution to come up with evidence of an unjustified killing before they arrest you, rather than arresting you first (after sufficient evidence of a killing) and then having you defend yourself in court (i.e., an affirmative defense of self-defense that you have to prove). I have to caveat this though, because in California this isn’t how it works, so this is news to me. Seems to me like the law is allowing the police to pick and choose which murders they want to bother investigating. Because imo Zimmerman's story was pretty weak (complete shit) and the police took his word for it. Do you support such a statute? and if so could you explain to me why it isn't as awful as I believe it to be. (assuming you aren't a person who supports awful things ^^) I simply don't see how it serves justice. MAYBE in a home invasion situation only would I want to give a person the amount of protection granted by the Florida SYG law. But if you kill someone in public, I certainly think its on you to defend your actions. i still think there was enough to arrest him despite his claim of self defense. i do not support statutes that dont require you to retreat. you should always be required to retreat if you can safely do so. i dont give a fuck if your ego is hurt, which is what these laws protect in my opinion. walk away, call the police and have them arrested for assault, battery, whatever they did. (of course, if you cant walk away safely that is a different story.) as for immunities, i dont really know enough to make an informed opinion. i think the defendant should have to prove their self defense theory in a court of law. anything that takes it away from the jury, i dont really like. So we were in agreement at a conceptual level the whole time? You just HAD to pick at every tiny error in my posts? You certainly quelled any possible doubts I had as to whether or not you are actually a lawyer!! - :D
lol. welcome to TL.
|
|
|
On March 25 2012 09:09 stokes17 wrote:Show nested quote +On March 25 2012 09:07 dAPhREAk wrote:On March 25 2012 09:00 stokes17 wrote:On March 25 2012 08:51 dAPhREAk wrote:On March 25 2012 08:31 stokes17 wrote:And to address your claim of oversimplification here is the exact lettering of the law that I take issue with: . + Show Spoiler +776.012 Use of force in defense of person.—A person is justified in using force, except deadly force, against another when and to the extent that the person reasonably believes that such conduct is necessary to defend himself or herself or another against the other’s imminent use of unlawful force. However, a person is justified in the use of deadly force and does not have a duty to retreat if:
(1) He or she reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the imminent commission of a forcible felony; or
(2) Under those circumstances permitted pursuant to s. 776.013.
776.013 Home protection; use of deadly force; presumption of fear of death or great bodily harm.—
(1) A person is presumed to have held a reasonable fear of imminent peril of death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another when using defensive force that is intended or likely to cause death or great bodily harm to another if:
(a) The person against whom the defensive force was used was in the process of unlawfully and forcefully entering, or had unlawfully and forcibly entered, a dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle, or if that person had removed or was attempting to remove another against that person’s will from the dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle; and
(b) The person who uses defensive force knew or had reason to believe that an unlawful and forcible entry or unlawful and forcible act was occurring or had occurred.
(2) The presumption set forth in subsection (1) does not apply if:
(a) The person against whom the defensive force is used has the right to be in or is a lawful resident of the dwelling, residence, or vehicle, such as an owner, lessee, or titleholder, and there is not an injunction for protection from domestic violence or a written pretrial supervision order of no contact against that person; or
(b) The person or persons sought to be removed is a child or grandchild, or is otherwise in the lawful custody or under the lawful guardianship of, the person against whom the defensive force is used; or
(c) The person who uses defensive force is engaged in an unlawful activity or is using the dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle to further an unlawful activity; or
(d) The person against whom the defensive force is used is a law enforcement officer, as defined in s. 943.10(14), who enters or attempts to enter a dwelling, residence, or vehicle 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 entering or attempting to enter was a law enforcement officer.
(3) A person who is not engaged in an unlawful activity and who is attacked in any other place where he or she has a right to be has no duty to retreat and has the right to stand his or her ground and meet force with force, including deadly force if he or she reasonably believes it is necessary to do so to prevent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the commission of a forcible felony. if you use .013(3) to justify .012. You have basically given a person the ability to use deadly force with immunity from arrest and criminal prosecution as granted here in .032(1) + Show Spoiler +(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. simply for "reasonably believes it is necessary to do so to prevent death or great bodily harm to himself" Was that specific enough for you now? Please explain to me what use this law has in the penal code. In practice it has resulted in 168 unarmed people being killed. And in theory it gives private citizens easier access to deadly force(with no oversight) than trained sworn in police officers with heavy oversight If I understand you correctly, you are saying that if you meet the requirements of the self-defense statute (.013(3) and .012)), you are immune from arrest/prosecution. That appears to be a correct reading of the statutes. However, there is nothing saying that the police have to take your word for it. If the police do not believe your story and they have probable cause that you committed an unjustified killing irrespective of your claim of self defense, they can still arrest you and try you in court. I think the main effect of this statute is putting the burden on the prosecution to come up with evidence of an unjustified killing before they arrest you, rather than arresting you first (after sufficient evidence of a killing) and then having you defend yourself in court (i.e., an affirmative defense of self-defense that you have to prove). I have to caveat this though, because in California this isn’t how it works, so this is news to me. Seems to me like the law is allowing the police to pick and choose which murders they want to bother investigating. Because imo Zimmerman's story was pretty weak (complete shit) and the police took his word for it. Do you support such a statute? and if so could you explain to me why it isn't as awful as I believe it to be. (assuming you aren't a person who supports awful things ^^) I simply don't see how it serves justice. MAYBE in a home invasion situation only would I want to give a person the amount of protection granted by the Florida SYG law. But if you kill someone in public, I certainly think its on you to defend your actions. i still think there was enough to arrest him despite his claim of self defense. i do not support statutes that dont require you to retreat. you should always be required to retreat if you can safely do so. i dont give a fuck if your ego is hurt, which is what these laws protect in my opinion. walk away, call the police and have them arrested for assault, battery, whatever they did. (of course, if you cant walk away safely that is a different story.) as for immunities, i dont really know enough to make an informed opinion. i think the defendant should have to prove their self defense theory in a court of law. anything that takes it away from the jury, i dont really like. So we were in agreement at a conceptual level the whole time? You just HAD to pick at every tiny error in my posts? You certainly quelled any possible doubts I had as to whether or not you are actually a lawyer!! - :D
sorry. occupational hazard. =(
at the beginning i thought he was most likely guilty, but was holding judgment until i heard from him. after i learned about the "John" testimony, i was less convinced of his guilt, but still felt there was enough for him to be arrested.
|
Beside using the word racism incorrectly (and its misused so often at this point its probably not a misuse anymore)
He kinda has a point. Like its absolutely cynical and nearly made me throw up in my mouth... but he's right. Trayvon was black in the wrong place at the wrong time (allegedly) and died for it, and it could happen to you too. Its a fucking sick message, but shit, it might save someone's life to think that way.
idn, there are so many things that are awful about this incident. It makes me very sad.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
