<p>“So–that’s why we have a trial.”</p>
<p>Pity it took community outcry to even get an arrest.</p>
<p>What did Florida law say about when justifiable homicide is allowed prior to the “stand your ground” law?</p>
<p>I seem to recall Florida was a duty to retreat state. You probably have heard of the phrase “have your back against the wall”? That was the layman’s way of describing the common law circumstances in which the person had satisfied the duty to retreat before using lethal force in defense of self in the face of threatened lethal force.</p>
<p>It is interesting (at least to me) that English law only focused on whther the response was “acting reasonably under the circumstances.” I seem to recall that a few cases indicated that a delay in response to what had occurred could be argued to be revenge rather than defense.</p>
<p>Community outcry? I read that a recent poll of Florida citizens revealed that approximately 1/3rd are opposed to the law. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>
California follows the common law duty to retreat standard. </p>
<p>It’s not particularly relevant to the claims that Zimmerman is making, because his story is that Martin was on top of him going for his gun and that he managed to shoot Martin from that angle. So if that story were believed, it would be self-defense in any state. </p>
<p>But there are a number of problems with that story, which I assume the prosecution will point out at trial, assuming Zimmerman even gets on the witness stand to try to tell the story.</p>
<p>Yes, GZ’s story is that he was on his back, with TM on top of him, straddling him, when TM suddenly saw the gun (with his x-ray vision) in the holster, which was behind his right hip, i.e., under him. During the walkthrough GZ demonstrates the hand/arm motion he used to draw the gun - which would have been impossible if he had been lying on his back, pinned to the ground.</p>
<p>Once again, that’s why there is a trial. Remember, lots of people “feel” that someone is guilty or innocent and the jury goes the other way. OJ, Casey Anthony etc. </p>
<p>Look at this Florida case tried by the same Florida DA. “Community outcry” after the stand your ground defense is rejected and the jury convicts!</p>
<p>[Fla</a>. woman Marissa Alexander gets 20 years for “warning shot”: Did she stand her ground? - Crimesider - CBS News](<a href=“http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-504083_162-57434757-504083/fla-woman-marissa-alexander-gets-20-years-for-warning-shot-did-she-stand-her-ground/]Fla”>http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-504083_162-57434757-504083/fla-woman-marissa-alexander-gets-20-years-for-warning-shot-did-she-stand-her-ground/)</p>
<p>“Community outcry?”</p>
<p>I was referring to the community reaction when the local authorities decided that there wasn’t a reason to investigate the shooting as a crime.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Where does it mention a general* duty to retreat in California Penal Code 197-199?</p>
<p>[CA</a> Codes (pen:187-199)](<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)</p>
<p>*As opposed to a one limited to the initiator of a conflict or during mutual combat.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Chase the dude away!!</p>
<p>All female jury. No Blacks.</p>
<p>I can see how both sides would try to get that jury mix.</p>
<p>Yea, I read the CNN article and it says that each side had ten “strikes” on the potential jurors list without having to give reasons, which is probably where most black/hispanics were dropped.</p>
<p>The issue with stand your ground laws varies in their implementation but the legal problem, to me, is when they change the “risk” of use of force by substituting a person’s judgement for the traditional “reasonable person” standard. That is, let’s say I’m a nasty person or have social issues and someone is looking at me funny and I think I’m in danger because I see him reach inside his jacket, so I pull out my gun and shoot him. That is not a reasonable action under the traditional “reasonable person” standard, but it has been claimed as a defense under these newer laws. And perhaps worse, it has been used to stop prosecutions so we never even have a case where violent force was used solely because it was this dude’s wholly subjective opinion. </p>
<p>My response, btw, was to go up to one of the dumbbleeps who voted for it, get into an argument with him and kill him … then cite the law this guy passed. In other words, while I don’t expect that to happen, these laws are passed with no sense of personal consequences, no belief that this could happen to you.</p>
<p>I note in one “case” a guy claimed this defense - he was a gas station and fired into a car containing, of course, some of them threatening minority kids after he claimed he saw a gun … which has never been found and which no testimony says ever was there. The prosecutors in this case are proceeding to try him for the killing. </p>
<p>In other words, when you substitute individual beliefs for a standard of rationality, you risk lawlessness and becoming more like Klingon Empire.</p>
<p>As for the Zimmerman case, when it goes to a judge and jury, I only follow at a glance. Why? Because this is how we decide things. Given the jury is not all white and this isn’t 1964.</p>
<p>Sanford itself, the county seat of Seminole county, is still 1964 in a lot of ways. Sanford has its roots as a farming center in central Florida. Most of the southerly portion of Seminole county and portions along I-4 corridor are now suburbs of Orlando with population makeup similar to Orlando’s.</p>
<p>The 10 strikes without reason have to withstand a challenge from the other side if there is a claim that a juror was struck for racial or gender reasons. The defense struck one black female juror. The state objected, the defense explained that her facebook page showed a friendship with one of the witnesses that was not disclosed (potential jurors were shown a list of witnesses and asked if they knew any). Furthermore, she posted her jury summons on her facebook page. When the state saw the evidence, they dropped their objection and she was gone. The state tried to strike two white females. I only heard the discussion of one of them. The defense challenged them, and the state’s reason was that the woman had said something to the effect that Trayvon should not have gone out to get candy at night. Seems like a good reason to me, but the judge ruled with the defense.</p>
<p>I saw only a bit of the jury selection. There are only 6 on the jury and 4 alternates, so it’s hard to get a balanced jury.</p>
<p>Lizard, post #3: “Is a separate trial going to be conducted on this CC website?”</p>
<p>I cherish these threads, because even when they get heated there is decorum and a level of intelligent discourse that is completely lacking elsewhere on internet discussions. We all have opinions, but there are people with actual knowledge of the legal system who post and explain on these CC threads. I may not post another word on this thread, but you can bet I’ll be reading it every day of this trial. Thanks to all of you who take the time to explain and to post links.</p>
<p>
I find your examples rather amusing, since they are both cases where it seems opinions (public as well as the opinions of many of those involved in the trial) point to their guilt. Sometimes innocent people are found guilty, and sometimes guilty people go free. And it seems that high profile trials are prone to the latter.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I guess Texas’ wrongful conviction “record” shows that a lot of innocent people get found guilty. High profile? Not sure how that is defined.</p>
<p>Darlie Routier (a mom found guilty of murdering her kids) is presently on Texas death row. Cameron Todd Willingham was put to death by lethal injection for allegedly murdering his kids using arson. DR’s execution is currently on hold for advanced DNA review and testing. CTW’s conviction has been the subject of scientific review which indicates there was no arson, just a house fire in which the kids perished.</p>
<p>My experience, which is limited to a single very big city, is that 9+ out of 10 indicted people plead guilty to some charge. The rest go to trial. Results are about 50:50. People go to trial because they think the law has an issue being applied to the facts - like a case involving possession of hand grenades without serial numbers when hand grenades don’t have serial numbers - or possession of a gun with the serial number defaced when you’d need a microscope to read the number. </p>
<p>Or a guy who claims the car he stole wasn’t worth $100 so it can’t be grand larceny. (Huge difference if multiple offender sentencing is involved.) Or a guy I saw go to trial because his lawyer realized the guy was so mentally deficient he lacked the mental ability to form the intent necessary to commit this particular crime. </p>
<p>And other cases that go to trial involve big consequences: the chance of getting off versus life without parole means you risk it because you literally have nothing to lose. The rest tend to be things like crimes where the witnesses are unreliable and the defense decides to risk it. </p>
<p>So if you go through all the types of cases, you end up with a rough handful that have a lot at stake and a big chance of getting it wrong. My guess is those tend to be determined correctly at the level of chance, meaning 50-50. We notice only a few of those.</p>
<p>As an example, I was in a case for a bit that involved a blunt miscarriage of justice. One defendant confessed and implicated the other but the judge refused to separate the trials, which was bluntly unconstitutional then - not sure now. It was impossible for the defense. And the judge made sure the appeal was handled by someone who let it all drop. So a couple of drunk deadbeat losers went to prison for a long time. The miscarriage of justice was not the result - they were guilty, though of what it’s still not clear - but the way the court railroaded them to get the desired result. The legal question, btw, was whether a person barely functioning under so much alcohol - and so much long term use that his brain is a sieve - who has no memory not only of the event but of whole days around that time, can have the intent to commit a crime. The physical evidence showed these guy were absolutely wasted but apparently so used to be being wasted they managed to zombie through a ridiculous armed robbery and more ridiculous escape. Seriously. It was like a bad screen play with one falling down and shooting a hole in the ceiling, the other trying to jump on the bar and missing, one guy forgetting what was happening and sitting down, one guy walking the wrong way down the street away from the car, etc. I think the judge decided these guys were going to be put away no matter what.</p>
<p>I’ve got two words that say all we need to know about justice in Texas, or lack thereof: Lenel Geter.</p>