Reply #51

In the discussion thread: Reuters: Man Lives to Tell of Florida 'Shoot First' Horror [View all]

Mon Mar 26, 2012, 10:30 PM

JDPriestly (37,767 posts)

51. A jury could find intent in some of this statements during the call.

Like "They always get away."

Why is someone on Neighborhood Watch carrying a gun anyway? It is asking for trouble. And why is he doing Neighborhood Watch duty all alone? Much would depend on the testimony of the eye witnesses.

Even if there is no conviction, there should have been a thorough investigation with forensic tests on Zimmerman as well as on Trayvon. The area should have been thoroughly searched. Many have noted that the hands of the victim and the killer should have been examined. Zimmerman's alleged injuries also should have been examined right then and there, photographed, etc.

It may be that the police are just not talking about their investigation, but the stand and defend law -- or whatever it is called -- is completely incompatible with the rest of our law. For example, first year law students learn the test for reasonableness inside and out. This law assumes that instead of applying a legal test to determine the reasonableness of a murder, the murderer is permitted to just declare himself innocent and shoot.

Horrors.

Sets centuries of progress in our law back.

Reply to this post

Back to OP Alert abuse Link to post in-thread

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum

Replies to this discussion thread

53 replies	Author	Time	Post
Reuters: Man Lives to Tell of Florida 'Shoot First' Horror [View all]	Hissyspit	Mar 2012	OP
You've gotta be kidding me	Cali_Democrat	Mar 2012	#1
aka legalized murder	noiretextatique	Mar 2012	#3
Self defense is in the eyes of the survivor	Hugabear	Mar 2012	#2
Well said, Hugabear.	JDPriestly	Mar 2012	#4
There's a hidden part of the law.	caseymoz	Mar 2012	#7
Thank you. That was not in the statutes I read.	JDPriestly	Mar 2012	#8
Not just JB. What about ALEC, who wrote it?	caseymoz	Mar 2012	#12
kick	Baitball Blogger	Mar 2012	#22
Excellent comment.	JDPriestly	Mar 2012	#41
I'm going to keep quoting myself	iverglas	Mar 2012	#15
Stand Your Ground doesn't include a change in presumption.	X_Digger	Mar 2012	#20
I was replying to a post	iverglas	Mar 2012	#36
Thanks.	JDPriestly	Mar 2012	#40
It says the police have to have probable cause that the use of force wasn't reasonable.	X_Digger	Mar 2012	#19
If "standard" why is it repeated here, then?	caseymoz	Mar 2012	#24
It's redundant yes.. what, you think prosecution can happen without probable cause!?!	X_Digger	Mar 2012	#28
Yes, but once probable cause is vacated	caseymoz	Mar 2012	#30
Depends at what level and if jeopardy is attached.	X_Digger	Mar 2012	#33
I haven't even gone into the "as permitted in . . ." part.	caseymoz	Mar 2012	#34
(1) and (2) don't apply- those are castle doctrine -- we're not talking about..	X_Digger	Mar 2012	#35
We'll see.	caseymoz	Mar 2012	#37
I'm optomistic, yes.	X_Digger	Mar 2012	#38
You have a problem here.	JDPriestly	Mar 2012	#44
Maybe that point isn't demonstrated.	caseymoz	Mar 2012	#50
A jury could find intent in some of this statements during the call.	JDPriestly	Mar 2012	#51
The problem is that people who think like animals and want to kill	JDPriestly	Mar 2012	#42
As I said in another reply, people who think like animals and want to kill..	X_Digger	Mar 2012	#45
But they will have to go to court and face a jury which Zimmerman needs to do.	JDPriestly	Mar 2012	#47
There's nothing in the law stopping them from arresting him right now.	X_Digger	Mar 2012	#49
Yes. I agree, but apparently there have been few convictions	JDPriestly	Mar 2012	#52
But as in this situation, this law makes people like Zimmerman feel empowered	JDPriestly	Mar 2012	#39
People inclined to go looking for trouble aren't going to let a law get in their way.	X_Digger	Mar 2012	#43
No matter what he said after the shooting, he admitted in his call to 911	JDPriestly	Mar 2012	#46
I agree.	X_Digger	Mar 2012	#48
Agreed.	JDPriestly	Mar 2012	#53
No CIVIL recourse either?	liberalhistorian	Mar 2012	#10
I'm not a lawyer, but that's my reading of it.	caseymoz	Mar 2012	#11
The only hope is with a federal civil rights case	Major Nikon	Mar 2012	#14
That's exactly what it means and it's even worse than that	Major Nikon	Mar 2012	#13
Actually, ALEC wrote the law.	caseymoz	Mar 2012	#26
Same nut, different tree	Major Nikon	Mar 2012	#29
sadly, they have one quasi-legal recourse allowed to them	magical thyme	Mar 2012	#23
Except other states have adopted photocopies of law.	caseymoz	Mar 2012	#31
No, the police may not arrest anyone without probable cause	X_Digger	Mar 2012	#17
The "Gunshine State"....	daleanime	Mar 2012	#5
And his brother was shot by police because he was threatening to commit suicide?	csziggy	Mar 2012	#6
How do people in other civilized countries manage to survive without reaching for weapons	sabrina 1	Mar 2012	#9
What I can't understand is, why does any state feel the NEED for this kind of law?	William Seger	Mar 2012	#16
no, but when I lived in Massachusetts they enacted a law	magical thyme	Mar 2012	#25
Arguments used to end with fistfights. Now they end with dead bodies.	mainer	Mar 2012	#18
This is the world that Republicans have created for us.	Baitball Blogger	Mar 2012	#21
To think this is 2012 and we are going backwards	goclark	Mar 2012	#27
Your last sentence says it all.	Baitball Blogger	Mar 2012	#32

Edit History

Please login to view edit histories.