Trayvon Martin.

This sounds like political dynamite for both sides... all I can say and I mean this half jokingly (and it is a sad statement on our current positions in the USA) Thank God Treyvon was not of Islamic heritage.

No matter what this was pure and simple a hate crime. And a waste of human life.

 

I think operative words that would make the above accurate is "perceive a *reasonable* threat of *great* bodily harm to be protected by the law." To be completely honest, unless Zimmerman was covered in blood and wounds, probable cause for an arrest most likely existed when police arrived on scene. You have (1) an unarmed (2) dead person (3) who was shot to death.

The time to present a SYG defense is actually during pre-trial motions (after arrest, after bond hearing, after arraignment, but before trial). So, I would have thought Sanford Police would have arrested Zimmerman and let him resolve his SYG defense in court.

You know, what I have not researched on is proportionality with respect to the Stand Your Ground law ("SYG Law"). But implicit in the words of the SYG statute, is the concept of proportionality ("the right to meet force with force") a comma, then "including deadly force IF threat of great bodily harm/death, etc."

My understanding of SYG was that it removed the duty to retreat, that is:
1.) In a non SYG state, if someone started hitting my occupied vehicle with a baseball bat, I had a legal obligation to drive away and could only claim self-defense if I could show that there was no other alternative to avoid injury.

2.) In a SYG State, hypothetically, if someone started hitting my occupied vehicle with a baseball bat, I could run him over and remain without criminal liability.

Dippin, where does it say that police have to have PC to believe a self-defense claim is false before arrest? Usually, it's the other way around. The police can arrest so long as they have PC ("reliable facts or knowledge that would lead a reasonable person to believe that a crime has been committed.)" In addition, the State already has the burden of "Beyond a Reasonable Doubt (something like 98%)" in all the elements of their cases.

The applicable standard for SYG is "Preponderance of the evidence" (51%) which makes sense, given the State's beyond a reasonable doubt burden. So the defense has to show by 51%, that they were meeting force with force.

And a judge won't lightly grant immunity--it's almost a mini-trial process in which the Defense files a motion to dismiss based on SYG.

In other words, the Burden of Proof still remains with the Defendant raising the SYG Defense. Technically, if the prosecutor can reach 50%, they can still go to trial (so they don't have to prove a negative, really.) You have case-law in which the Defense's SYG story was contradicted by other witnesses, and the Judge properly denied the SYG motion to dismiss.
--- merged: Mar 22, 2012 at 9:40 PM ---
A quote from the Christian Science Monitor puts it very succinctly:

 

i expected this line of argument from the gun enthusiasts, really. the law is necessary good, this was an problematic singularity. my point is that the basis for zimmerman's action was, by all appearances, racism, and of a kind that can appear to be "reasonable" if someone imagines that someone who has the audacity to be walking while black coupled with having the unmitigated gall to be wearing a hoodie and be young could constitute a "threat"---so the problem with the otherwise obviously perfect law is the underlying racism in the places where that law's been instituted. so clearly it behooves proponents of that law's perfection and of the total reasonableness of being able to wander around strapped to work actively to undermine the racism that creates such problems in the context of this obviously perfect law. but strangely, i don't see that cropping up amongst the supporters of this obviously perfect law. and i sure as fuck don't see the nra making any moves in this direction. why is that? maybe they can't? maybe when they shifted hard to the right they gave away the capacity to be active against racism without endangering a significant element of its base?

 

I don't see how anyone can deny that 'liberal' (in the nonpolitical sense) gun laws enabled this situation. This was a person told by the state of Florida that he was eligible and capable of carrying a concealed weapon on his person. (The question of whether a person on Neighborhood 'Watch' should be allowed to carry a firearm is another angle i have heard discussed on the radio in recent days.)

Again, I would think that those who believe that these laws can be enacted safely and responsibly, should take on the responsibility of setting very clearly defined standards of what it means to be safe and responsible with a firearm in a world full of perceived threats. I think the idea that anyone without a criminal record or history of certain mental illnesses should be allowed to apply for, jump through a few hoops and be granted the right to carry a firearm is unbelievably pollyanna-ish. I mean, jesus, look around you. And it's only getting worse.

I've said it before and I'll say it again. I don't essentially disagree with the right to own firearms or even the right to carry concealed weapons. Especially when one is imagining the carrier to be a maybe crotchety, but good-hearted and rational soul like Clint Eastwood in Gran Torino, but the reality, as we all know, is far different.

 

As I understand it, Florida's SYG law has the broadest application, allowing the greatest interpretation by police and providing the greatest protections for the person perceiving a threat of bodily harm, including the provision of "no duty to retreat" that is in most other SYG laws.

My real issue is why these laws should go beyond the "castle doctrine" that would limit it to protecting one's home and property. And here still, there is a need for clearer and less ambiguous standards of "perceived threat of bodily harm>"

But why do we need to give untrained civilians any extraordinary legal protection at all in cases of a questionable or an unprovoked shooting in a public place?

 

And what is most frustrating is that to even raise these questions somehow becomes an attack on Second Amendment Rights.
--- merged: Mar 23, 2012 3:36 AM ---

I still contend that these laws enable these types of tragic shootings to occur, regardless of whether it provides extraordinary protection (subject to interpretation) to the shooter or not.

 

Absolutely. If the shooter believes he is acting within the SYG law, it is an enabler. Particularly in FL, where it is increasingly being used as a defense and prosecution is rare (only 30% of the cases where it was invoked faced a trial).

Thought process? How do the police or prosecutors challenge the shooter's thought process to determine if the perceived threat was real, particularly w/o witnesses?

 

And the 70 percent that never went to trial...presumable based. at least in some cases, on the police and/or prosecutors accepting the word of the shooter when there is no contradictory evidence or witnesses?

Trayvon Martin could not tell his side to the police.

 

Doesnt that suggest that there is something wrong with the law that allows (enables) so many to avoid prosecution?

 

So in Florida, IF I am to go to a doctor and I see Rush Limbaugh coming in to go doctor shopping can I say he threatens me by what he says on the radio? That my sister and mom have plenty of sex and neither is a slut or prostitute?

Any law I can legally shoot Limbaugh and get away with it, I'm there and waiting....

Sorry trying to add levity.

 

Right, prosecutors (who determine what cases to take to trial) are deciding not to prosecute based, at least in some cases, solely on the words of the shooter within the framework of the law, particularly in FL where it can be so broadly applied. Judges dont determine what cases should come to trial...that is the role of the prosecutor.
--- merged: Mar 23, 2012 at 12:20 AM ---
These laws, that deal with life and death situations and not seat belts, are too broad with too much left to the discretion of the prosecutors (and the police who take the statements of the shooter). They need to be reviewed and greater and less ambiguous standards applied.

 

I honestly dont understand your position. If too much is left to the discretion of the prosecutors, then fix the laws to minimize that.
--- merged: Mar 23, 2012 at 12:26 AM ---
The problem that prosecutors have is that if there is no other evidence but the word of the shooter, how do they make a compelling case to challenge that?