<p>
</p>
<p>Now THAT’S quite simple. By never turning on her show and switching off anything that mentions her.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Now THAT’S quite simple. By never turning on her show and switching off anything that mentions her.</p>
<p>^lol. I admit sometimes when there is nothing else on I turn on her show…and there are times that I think she’s actually right.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Doesn’t look like it; see 776.041 here:</p>
<p>[Statutes</a> & Constitution :View Statutes : Online Sunshine](<a href=“Statutes & Constitution :View Statutes : Online Sunshine”>Statutes & Constitution :View Statutes : Online Sunshine)</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Why is this such a big surprise? Adults exhibit the same behavior (e.g. Israelis and Palestinians and numerous other examples).</p>
<p>Calmom - I stand corrected and confounded. It’s open season at the OK Corrall that is Florida. I had to look it up and reread to appreciate it - not only is there stand your ground in a place where the victim also has a right to be but the defendant only has to introduce “some evidence” that he acted in self defense. </p>
<p>As I was saying earlier, it would behoove one to leave the sunshine state to those who’d find all sorts of reasons to stand their ground, in public no less.</p>
<p>Jamcafe, in a criminal case, the burden of proof is always on the prosecution to prove all elements of the case beyond a reasonable doubt. One of the elements of murder is that it is an unlawful (unjustifiable) killing – and true self defense is never unlawful. The jury can’t speculate – that is, if there is no evidence at all of self defense, the prosecution doesn’t have to negate what isn’t there. But once there is evidence that could potentially show self defense, then the defendant can get a jury instruction about self defense and it is the prosecution’s burden to overcome that. </p>
<p>“Stand your ground” is different because it gives a person a right above and beyond self defense, and it it confers immunity from prosecution as well as civil liability. Self-defense means that if someone attacks you and you are in reasonable fear of your life, you can use deadly force to protect yourself. But self-defense also means that there is a duty to retreat if possible – that doesn’t mean you have to run if someone has a gun to your head, but it does mean that if a person pulled a knife on you in a public place and said, “get out of here” – you wouldn’t have the right to shoot them.</p>
<p>But with “stand your ground” – you do. You could say, “I’m not leaving” and if the fight continued, defend yourself against the knife wielder.</p>
<p>The “immunity” part means that you could also go to court and prevent any trial from taking place-- but you’d have to be able to prove that the stand your ground situation applied. Florida has a procedure to allow a “stand your ground” hearing to take place before trial, decided only by a Judge and not a jury.</p>
<p>For Zimmerman to prove “stand your ground” that way, he’d have to testify and be subject to cross-examination. I think the lawyer waived the “stand your ground” hearing because he thinks they would lose the motion and he doesn’t want Zimmerman exposed to cross-examination on the witness stand, probably because Zimmerman can’t hold things together and testify credibly. I think that the defense lawyer is hoping that enough evidence will come out during the prosecution’s case to require that the jury be instructed on self-defense, without the need for Zimmerman to testify.</p>
<p>sosomenza,</p>
<p>I felt the same about Casey Anthony case. I never want to face a jury of my peers in FL. Neighborhoods that I know with a neighborhood watch always send people out in teams, and I have never heard of anyone carrying a gun.</p>
<p>The ‘stand-your-ground’ law in Florida has worked for almost 70% of those in court who were on trial for killing claiming self-defense. The law needs tweaking.</p>
<p>[Stand</a> your ground law, Trayvon Martin and a shocking legacy | Tampa Bay Times](<a href=“http://www.tampabay.com/stand-your-ground-law/]Stand”>http://www.tampabay.com/stand-your-ground-law/)</p>
<p>“2. George Zimmerman is not relying on the Stand Your Ground law. At this point, he is simply claiming self-defense.”</p>
<p>A guy is walking along the street early one evening. He sees a black kid walk into his neighborhood. The guy chases the kid into the dark and shoots him dead. Upon emerging he meets a local cop who asks “What happened?” The guy says “I self-defensed myself.”</p>
<p>Stand-your-ground laws have been passed in a number of states. These laws are written by lobbying groups, who then find a tame state legislator to sponsor them. It’s frightening.</p>
<p>bookworm, the “neighborhood watch” organization has rules. One of them is that the NW person is not to be armed. Another is that nothing should be done beyond calling the police.</p>
<p>It is absolutely clear to anyone who has watched GZ’s multiple police interviews, his re-enactment the day after the shooting, his interview on Sean Hannity’s show, that he cannot be put on the stand. His stories are inconsistent with one another and with the evidence.</p>
<p>Note that GZ has never given a solid reason for his suspicions of TM. Even if the police had gotten there right away, I don’t think they would have been able to stop and question him.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I think you might want to read up on Terry stops to see if the above is accurate.
[Police</a> Chief Magazine - View Article](<a href=“http://www.policechiefmagazine.org/magazine/index.cfm?fuseaction=display_arch&article_id=1150&issue_id=42007]Police”>http://www.policechiefmagazine.org/magazine/index.cfm?fuseaction=display_arch&article_id=1150&issue_id=42007)</p>
<p>07DAD, I looked at your link, and it says that an officer can stop someone “if the officer can articulate a reasonable suspicion that the suspect has committed a crime or is about to commit a crime”. There was no reason to believe that either of these were true about TM. GZ did not even claim anything like this. He offered only vague comments about TM looking suspicious, nothing solid.</p>
<p>Newhope, is there any evidence that GZ ‘chased’ Martin? That would be news to me.</p>
<p>^ Well, I was trying to avoid using the word “stalked” which many find offensive. How about “meandered after in a way that a teenager in the middle of a phone call to his girlfriend would notice.” </p>
<p>Look, no amount of facts or hyperbole is going to change anyone’s mind at this point. A couple quick Google searches illustrate that nicely:
“Zimmerman victim” 17 Million hits
“Free Zimmerman” 101 Million hits
“Martin Thug” 8 Million hits
“Martin Criminal” 106 Million hits
“Martin deserved (to die)” 87 Million hits</p>
<p>Total these up and it’s approximately the same as the current USA population. And it’s only a partial listing supporting Zimmerman’s side of the issue … and none of Martin’s. FWIW, here’s the Probable Cause Document. </p>
<p><a href=“http://i.cdn.turner.com/dr/hln/www/release/sites/default/files/download/2012/04/12/zimmerman_probable_cause_document.pdf[/url]”>http://i.cdn.turner.com/dr/hln/www/release/sites/default/files/download/2012/04/12/zimmerman_probable_cause_document.pdf</a></p>
<p>Someone from a neighborhood watch program ‘following’ an individual he/she doesn’t recognize happens all the time. Based on what I’ve read, I wouldn’t classify what GZ did as ‘chasing’ or ‘stalking’. I’m not defending his actions as a whole.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>How are Florida law and California law all that different in “standing your ground” in self defense other than in the immunity from prosecution part in Florida’s 776.032 (which is invalidated along with 776.012-031 by 776.041 when someone “initially provokes the use of force against himself or herself” and does not attempt to escape or disengage)?</p>
<p>[Statutes</a> & Constitution :View Statutes : Online Sunshine](<a href=“Statutes & Constitution :View Statutes : Online Sunshine”>Statutes & Constitution :View Statutes : Online Sunshine)</p>
<p>[url=<a href=“http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/displaycode?section=pen&group=00001-01000&file=187-199]CA”>http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/displaycode?section=pen&group=00001-01000&file=187-199]CA</a> Codes (pen:187-199)<a href=“start%20at%20197%20for%20the%20justifiable%20homicide%20provisions”>/url</a></p>
<p>If you are interested and have access, check out Florida penal law. “Unauthorized access” and “Loitering/Prowling” are pretty broad.</p>
<p>Do such crimes listed in #37 qualify as those which invoke the justifiable homicide provisions of 776.012-031?</p>
<p>As I understand it, in Florida “justifiable homicide” is not related to an underlying other crime. It is based on the circumstances/perceptions justifing lethal force in response. </p>
<p>Here is a detailed list of incidents involving justifiable homicide if you care to look into it farther. </p>
<p>[Justifiable</a> homicides in Florida](<a href=“http://databases.sun-sentinel.com/news/broward/ftlaudjustified/ftlaudjustifiable_list.php]Justifiable”>http://databases.sun-sentinel.com/news/broward/ftlaudjustified/ftlaudjustifiable_list.php)</p>
<p>ucbalumnus–</p>
<p>I was responding to the idea the the police would not have been able to stop and question TM. They could clearly have asked him a question (whether or not he answered). I am not sure if the community was sufficiently gated and enclosed to fall within the unauthorized access provisions to justify a Terry stop by police. If TM was observed attempting to screen himself or hide behind tree, shrubs etc., a possible argument could be made that would justify a Terry stop by police for loitering/prowling.</p>
<p>I had a few moments to look at the Flas. statutes. You are correct, prowling as defined would not allow for lethal force, but unauthorized access might if it was part of a burglary of a residence. But, as I understand it, Z isn’t claiming TM was engaged in a crime.</p>
<p>Also, it exists in any situation where there is a reasonable belief of imminent great bodily harm to oneself. I think that is Z’s contention.</p>
<p>So–that’s why we have a trial.</p>