George Zimmerman - Florida Unarmed Teen Shooting

[Chunkychuck]

Are you advocating then that the DA in Minneapolis was wrong in not sending to a jury (Grand Jury or trial jury) the man that pursued the mugger last year and ultimatedly ended up shooting the mugger when the mugger drew his weapon first? There was plenty of discussion on here and other forums as to whether he was an "unwilling participant"

The DA determined that he acted in self defense, even in the absence of stand your ground laws. Who am I to judge his findings? It essentially worked like the system is supposed to work. I have no problems with the results of that particular case.

So if FL did not have "stand your ground" and the DA there determined Zimmerman acted in self defense even though they may have been questions about his "unwilling particpant" status you would be OK with the decision? The reason I ask is that your statement about sending questionable actions to a jury seemed to me to be an absolute, thus removing the descretion of the prosecutor.

[Heffay]

So if FL did not have "stand your ground" and the DA there determined Zimmerman acted in self defense even though they may have been questions about his "unwilling particpant" status you would be OK with the decision? The reason I ask is that your statement about sending questionable actions to a jury seemed to me to be an absolute, thus removing the descretion of the prosecutor.

I'm not talking about Florida's stand your ground law, nor am I referring to the Zimmerman case specifically. I'm talking about road rage incidents that are using stand your ground to avoid a trial.

In the Zimmerman case in particular, there are reasons to believe that the case was mishandled, making a grand jury investigation almost a necessity. It's clear there is significant doubt about what happened, so yes, further investigation is warranted. However, according to the Florida's flawed law, Zimmerman could have walked without any investigation just based on the way it's worded. That's the problem.

Checks and balances. That's what's important.

[Chunkychuck]

So if FL did not have "stand your ground" and the DA there determined Zimmerman acted in self defense even though they may have been questions about his "unwilling particpant" status you would be OK with the decision? The reason I ask is that your statement about sending questionable actions to a jury seemed to me to be an absolute, thus removing the descretion of the prosecutor.

I'm not talking about Florida's stand your ground law, nor am I referring to the Zimmerman case specifically. I'm talking about road rage incidents that are using stand your ground to avoid a trial.

In the Zimmerman case in particular, there are reasons to believe that the case was mishandled, making a grand jury investigation almost a necessity. It's clear there is significant doubt about what happened, so yes, further investigation is warranted. However, according to the Florida's flawed law, Zimmerman could have walked without any investigation just based on the way it's worded. That's the problem.

Checks and balances. That's what's important.

I always thought the DA was the initial check and balance on whether someone's defense claim of "SYG" in a road rage incidence or any other other incidence is valid or not. I may make the claim, he can agree or disagree. If he disagrees, I go to trial, if he agrees I don't.


"However, according to the Florida's flawed law, Zimmerman could have walked without any investigation just based on the way it's worded. That's the problem."

Florida Statutes CHAPTER 776 JUSTIFIABLE USE OF FORCE

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.


I see nothing in there that prohibits a DA from investigating or disagreeing with a person's claim of SYG. Just like open carry here in MN with a PTC, what is not prohibited is allowed.

[tman]

Again, I ask..

The beginning of the confrontation doesn't start there, as you well know. Anyone losing in a fight instantly becomes an unwilling participant at that point.

Losing a fight is not the same as being prevented from extricating yourself from the situation, as you well know.

When you ignore the advice a dispatcher gives you to extricate yourself from the sitution, I think your whole "unwilling participant" defense goes out the window.

If someone you didn't know was leaning on your car, just looking through a window, in a parking lot, and you said, "hey, what the hell are you doing with my car," are you "the aggressor?"
What if you think the guy was getting ready to break into it, so you follow him when he walks away, while you're on the phone to 911? Have you become the aggressor yet?

Where do you think the line is drawn?

[tman]

In the Zimmerman case in particular, there are reasons to believe that the case was mishandled, making a grand jury investigation almost a necessity. It's clear there is significant doubt about what happened, so yes, further investigation is warranted. However, according to the Florida's flawed law, Zimmerman could have walked without any investigation just based on the way it's worded. That's the problem.

Checks and balances. That's what's important.

The case was investigate, charges requested, and charges declined. How was it mis-handled? What evidence was missed?

[Heffay]

In the Zimmerman case in particular, there are reasons to believe that the case was mishandled, making a grand jury investigation almost a necessity. It's clear there is significant doubt about what happened, so yes, further investigation is warranted. However, according to the Florida's flawed law, Zimmerman could have walked without any investigation just based on the way it's worded. That's the problem.

Checks and balances. That's what's important.

The case was investigate, charges requested, and charges declined. How was it mis-handled? What evidence was missed?

I would prefer to talk about how stand your ground is flawed in its current implementation. The whole Zimmerman case is a mess. If the lead investigator recommends manslaughter charges and the DA declines to prosecute, why does it have to end there? Why did the DA refuse to try Zimmerman?

http://newsfeed.time.com/2012/05/18/new ... hould-know

[Heffay]

If someone you didn't know was leaning on your car, just looking through a window, in a parking lot, and you said, "hey, what the hell are you doing with my car," are you "the aggressor?"
What if you think the guy was getting ready to break into it, so you follow him when he walks away, while you're on the phone to 911? Have you become the aggressor yet?

Where do you think the line is drawn?

Good question. I don't write laws for a living, but I'd be happy to hear some ideas where a line could be drawn. But in the event the law isn't clearly written, I would suggest the jury gets to determine if you were the aggressor.

[Chunkychuck]

If someone you didn't know was leaning on your car, just looking through a window, in a parking lot, and you said, "hey, what the hell are you doing with my car," are you "the aggressor?"
What if you think the guy was getting ready to break into it, so you follow him when he walks away, while you're on the phone to 911? Have you become the aggressor yet?

Where do you think the line is drawn?

Good question. I don't write laws for a living, but I'd be happy to hear some ideas where a line could be drawn. But in the event the law isn't clearly written, I would suggest the jury gets to determine if you were the aggressor.

So are we going to do this for all cases that allow juries or just SYG laws? I could make a case that a lot of laws are not clearly written. In some circumstances it is probably intentional to allow prosecutorial discretion. The fact that the county DA didn't feel he could get a conviction if he took Zimmerman to trial because of the SYG law doesn't mean it is necessarily written badly. Who knows, he could have charged Zimmerman and have had a jury believe his case.

[illbits]

I don't write laws for a living

^

[Heffay]

So are we going to do this for all cases that allow juries or just SYG laws? I could make a case that a lot of laws are not clearly written. In some circumstances it is probably intentional to allow prosecutorial discretion. The fact that the county DA didn't feel he could get a conviction if he took Zimmerman to trial because of the SYG law doesn't mean it is necessarily written badly. Who knows, he could have charged Zimmerman and have had a jury believe his case.

It should be done for all laws. Everything should be clearly written. Otherwise we get things like this. Or at least have juries instructed on jury nullification instead of having judges telling them that the right doesn't exist. Laws that find people guilty of actions that should clearly have not been included should have that option clearly explained.

[infidel]

Heffey, it has not been determined who the aggressor is. I can interact with anyone without breaking laws. Who was "accosted" and why? Who "assaulted" who? Who threw the first punch? Stand your ground is not some catch all phrase that exonerates all actions. You, like the rest of us do not know what exactly transpired. To use this case as an example of problems that you see with "Stand your Ground" legislation, is very premature.

[goalie]

I love watching people argue about stand your ground laws in a thread about a case in which that law is pretty much irrelevant.

[Chunkychuck]

I love watching people argue about stand your ground laws in a thread about a case in which that law is pretty much irrelevant.

I agree goalie, but SYG is what is being put on trial by the media. But you and I both know that if the media says it enough then the general public is going to believe that is what the case is about.

[jshuberg]

I would prefer to talk about how stand your ground is flawed in its current implementation. The whole Zimmerman case is a mess. If the lead investigator recommends manslaughter charges and the DA declines to prosecute, why does it have to end there? Why did the DA refuse to try Zimmerman?

First, you seem to be the only one here arguing that stand your ground is flawed. I do not consider it to be, and the majority of others here seem to share that opinion. The Zimmerman case is a mess only because a bunch of jackasses are raising non-issues in the press in order to get people worked up about racism and profiling in what many consider to be the most important state in this election year. When you ignore the hype and BS, the case is not a mess and should be a fairly ordinary legal process.

Also, police officers do not have the authority to bring charges against people. The vast majority do not have a legal degree, or have the legal understanding necessary to determine which cases should be prosecuted and how. If they did, chances are they would be practicing lawyers. The fact that the lead investigator recommended charges is an interesting footnote, that's it. It's of no more consequence than the 911 operator recommending Zimmerman stay in the car. You (and much of the press) are making a big deal out of people's opinions who have no legal, professional, or authority to their opinion. The investigating officer recommending charges be brought is no more significant that the flower boutique owner down the street recommending charges be brought. Much to the dismay of some law enforcement officers, their profession does not make their opinions become the law.

Why did the DA refuse to charge Zimmerman? I'm going to hazard a guess and say that when he examined the evidence of the case (evidence that is only now being dribbled out to the public), he determined that there was not sufficient evidence to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Zimmerman committed a crime. Either that or he (and every other official in the state of Florida) hates black people and will cover it up when someone murders one. You can decide which you think is more reasonable.

[Chunkychuck]

So are we going to do this for all cases that allow juries or just SYG laws? I could make a case that a lot of laws are not clearly written. In some circumstances it is probably intentional to allow prosecutorial discretion. The fact that the county DA didn't feel he could get a conviction if he took Zimmerman to trial because of the SYG law doesn't mean it is necessarily written badly. Who knows, he could have charged Zimmerman and have had a jury believe his case.

It should be done for all laws. Everything should be clearly written. Otherwise we get things like this. Or at least have juries instructed on jury nullification instead of having judges telling them that the right doesn't exist. Laws that find people guilty of actions that should clearly have not been included should have that option clearly explained.

Cute using one of my other posts. It would appear those convicted of DUI got their day in court, doesn't say if they had a jury though. So for those convictions, if I understand your reasoning, DUI laws should specify the actor must be seen in the act of operating a motor vehicle on a public street while under the influence. Anything else is OK.

That one was pretty easy. I'm not sure you can make it that simple with defensive uses of firearms. Maybe the law could say, Anyone making a claim of self defense use of a firearm shall be arrested and have a trial by jury with 112 days of their arrest. Bail shall be a miniumum of $225,000.00 If we did that we might get more stories like this.
http://www.desmoinesregister.com/articl ... w-homeless