Stand Your Ground

[Darrell]

skep:

I appreciate your thoughts on the case, but in general what is the great hangup about firearms? And would you feel the same if some carried knives or clubs? How about tazers. (remember that we are talking about DEFENSE ONLY usage).

For example, I often carry a gun concealed (permitted) when out walking my dog in the neighborhood. My main concern is the infrequent wild animal (bear, coyote, wolf, or rabid skunk, racoon or fox). But suppose I were suddenly confronted by a streetgang of violent youths with knives, clubs and guns. What are my rights in such a scenario? Am I not free to attempt to defend myself?

And then returning one's attention to the nightwatch personnel, do they not have these same rights to DEFEND THEMSELVES? I agree with you that they are not policemen and should not act as though they are. Weapons should not be displayed in any situation other than last resort defense against attack. Any confrontation should be respectful and lawful.

A good way to proceed might be a polite question such as: "can we help you find what you are seeking here?" I see no need for harsh words just because a stranger is in the neighborhood. The person might actually be a visiting friend of one of your neighbors, looking for his house. And should it turn out that said stranger was up to no good after all, he will probably leave peacefully due to the attention he is now getting by your neighborhood watch group.

Peaceful and respectful confrontation isn't a bad thing. It clears the air. It lowers tensions. It can actually be helpful. And in the process, it can achieve its objective of keeping the neighborhood safe via peaceful means. I know that were I the stranger in the neighborhood, I would prefer this over having people watching my every move and following me around.

One more thing ... I think it wrong to call the police over simply profiling a stranger in the neighborhood. I think one should wait until one sees a criminal action in progress before calling them. Then all the watch group should do is call attention to their presence in an attempt to get the criminal to quit and run. Then all they should do is watch. The only time I would sanction them to actively get involved is if the criminal is about to harm someone. Otherwise they should only aid arrest via their witnessing of event details. JMHO

[Skeptical]

I don't have a problem with private citizens carrying firearms. However, when you sign on to be part of a Neighborhood Watch group, you agree to abide by its by-laws and I would be very surprised if there isn't something in its charter that prohibits carrying deadly weapons.

S

[orangekea]

Originally Posted by Skeptical

I really regret that this incident has been used by certain members of society to foment racial hatred. It was a regrettable incident for sure but it is a travesty to use it for political ends.

Regardless of what details are eventually unearthed in this case, we know for sure that a Neighborhood Watch person was armed with a deadly weapon. If I were the head of that group and found out some of the members were packing, that would be their last day on Neighborhood Watch - done, period, end of story. These guys are not policemen. They are not vigilantes. They're just neighbors watching out for one another. Since when does that involve firearms?

The second thing is that, at some point, to some extent, Mr. Zimmerman had to seek out a confrontation. He told police he was following Martin and ignored police directions to cease and desist. To my puny legal mind, that means that Zimmerman was the last person who could have prevented the events that followed. For that reason, he bears responsibility for what happened.

Still, this was not murder. It was a stupid avoidable incident that spiraled out of control. Barring significant evidence to the contrary, I can see where Zimmerman will go down on a manslaughter charge, get 3-5 and, if he survives in prison, he'll be on probation in 18-24 months.

S

First, good to have you posting again, Skeptical, and I agree or empathise with almost all points you make.

Except in one point of fact: the relentless pursuit by Zimmerman (leading to the shooting) has been an internet rumor, as well as the for now unproven prosecution theory. We have an earwitness(?), Martin's girlfriend on the phone with him, who well may be challenged on the relative movement of the men (anyone moving towards the other or both closing in?). And we have the 911 call by Zimmerman to police dispatch, where the operator notices the start of the pursuit (quite the ruckus, banging, possible loud breathing and footsteps!), he instructs Zimmerman to disengage, and he goes "OK" and the ruckus turns silent after 32 seconds. (The shooting takes place at another location minutes later.)

Logically the tape indicates that Zimmerman did break off pursuit. Trayvon Martin was momentarily lost from sight. Did they meet later by coincidence? Did Zimmerman walk on, still following, to confront Martin eventually? Or did Martin double back and jump/suckerpunch a retreating George Zimmerman? The latter possibility would make for a whole different legal playing field: Zimmerman bears no responsibility for Martin's decision to pursue and assault him, and then may reasonably have felt himself in danger of being disarmed and losing consciousness, meaning mortal danger, the Floridan threshold for a Stand Your Ground appeal.


orangekea


P.S. if you have the minutes to spare, go click on George Zimmerman's 911 call in Reply # 317 where the distinct/fairly loud pursuit noises are heard from (approx.) the 2:09 to 2:41 mark, to a 32 sec total.

[orangekea]

It is reported today the judge revoked George Zimmerman's bail, meaning he must return to jail within 48 hours, on the grounds he misled the court about the funds available at the time of the initial $150,000 bond hearing on April 20th.

On the surface this seems formally correct, nor Zimmerman or attorney O'Mara made any mention during the bond hearing of the mounting donations (according to prosecution on April 20 reaching the $135,000 mark) coming in at his website. And while George Zimmerman was quiet on the subject, his wife testified.


"Zimmerman's wife, however, testified at a bond hearing that the couple had access to limited funds, as she was a nursing student and Zimmerman was not working."


Possibly wife Shellie answered truthfully as far as she knew, and her husband had been behind bars (sofar presumably without internet access), so his silence and her statement to Judge Lester were not intentionally deceptive (neither of them knew about the size of supporter donations), still he was legally responsible to disclose his finances in order for bail to be set correctly.

All this came to light after the 20th April bond hearing, when later that week Zimmerman did access his IamTheRealGeorgeZimmerman site and saw it had accumulated a whopping $204,000 in supporter money. He told an understandably shocked O'Mara, who immediately informed the judge on Friday April 27th.

Shows (this is is for all of us!) that once you are led before a Judge, standing accused of a crime, regardless of your age or background: school's out. No more calling for Mommy, crying about what's fair or not, you WILL be judged by the law. And Zimmerman was required to tell what money he had.

O'Mara in defense of his client emphasized that there was no actual deceit involved, a claim corroborated by the fact that the (much needed!) money stood untouched on April 20, the day when Zimmerman kept silent, and his wife believed and testified they had only limited financial means.

Will the judge yet weigh indications that Zimmerman was unaware of the donations? If not he may have to wait in prison until the trial starts next year.


orangekea

[Darrell]

Here we go again with the absurdity of bail bonds! How about instead simply holding the person charged either in jail or house arrest and progressing quickly to trial? And just to make it both interesting and expedient, impose a significant financial penalty against the state for every day the charged person spends behind bars if later found innocent at trial? (And if found guilty, let the time served count against his sentence.)

[orangekea]

Originally Posted by Darrell

Here we go again with the absurdity of bail bonds! How about instead simply holding the person charged either in jail or house arrest and progressing quickly to trial? And just to make it both interesting and expedient, impose a significant financial penalty against the state for every day the charged person spends behind bars if later found innocent at trial? (And if found guilty, let the time served count against his sentence.)

I do take note of your principled objections against the bail system, Darrell. Good points on general law and prosecution. However in Zimmerman's case both prosecutors and defense had timing problems. Angela Corey's team was slow to disclose, clearly struggling to make their case. And O'Mara waived right to a speedy trial, in view of the special challenge of keeping pro-Zimmerman witnesses protected/alive until appearing in court! Both parties are pressing the judge to seal vital parts of discovery, Corey's prosecutors fearing not HAVING a case if full facts are published, and Zimmerman's team justifiably terrified of witnesses harassed/influenced/SILENCED into retracting statements corroborating the defense scenario.

Simply, this case covered so much dangerous ground it had to proceed slowly.

A state paying for unlawful incarceration (up front): good luck with that, Darrell ! (I agree time served should be subtracted from sentences, and believe judge are doing this already?)


So in this specific case (with many months until trial) the bail system worked well, right up to this moment imo. My impression is that it is much ado about nothing. Zimmerman was unaware of the large donations, and of his obligations to disclose anything and everything he possessed. And when he discovered it days after the $150,000 bond hearing on April 20th, he already was formally in breach. (The accusations of him 'lying' about this seem another manifestation of the 'Get George Zimmerman' mentality.)


orangekea

[dr wu23]

What amazes me still is that anyone should be obssessed with this case especially non- Americans.
-just saying.

[Darrell]

what's the problem wu? bored?

A thread gets written by someone interested in something. People respond when interested and having something to say. Threads grow and/or die due to membership contributions or lack thereof. I sincerely doubt if anyone cares that you don't. Given the 33 pages of this thread to date, I will go out on a limb and suggest that some members do have interest in this thread.

As far as I am concerned, this one case raises a host of legitimate questions about our legal system of justice, ranging from rights to defend home, family and community on one hand to how the courts treat such encounters and their participants on the other.

BTW, I am absolutely appalled by the judgement that Zimmerman should be expected to spend over 6 months in jail for a crime he will most likely be acquited of at his eventual, long term delayed trial. Justice should be swift IMHO. "Justice delayed is justice denied." And in regard to bonds, I feel that the state should have to post bond to compensate Zimmerman for lost time and wages should he win at trial. We simply can't go around incarcerating people for long periods (just because we think they might have commited a crime) without having to pay some form of compensation to the ones deemed innocent by fair trial.

[dr wu23]

Originally Posted by Darrell

what's the problem wu? bored?

A thread gets written by someone interested in something. People respond when interested and having something to say. Threads grow and/or die due to membership contributions or lack thereof. I sincerely doubt if anyone cares that you don't. Given the 33 pages of this thread to date, I will go out on a limb and suggest that some members do have interest in this thread.

As far as I am concerned, this one case raises a host of legitimate questions about our legal system of justice, ranging from rights to defend home, family and community on one hand to how the courts treat such encounters and their participants on the other.

BTW, I am absolutely appalled by the judgement that Zimmerman should be expected to spend over 6 months in jail for a crime he will most likely be acquited of at his eventual, long term delayed trial. Justice should be swift IMHO. "Justice delayed is justice denied." And in regard to bonds, I feel that the state should have to post bond to compensate Zimmerman for lost time and wages should he win at trial. We simply can't go around incarcerating people for long periods (just because we think they might have commited a crime) without having to pay some form of compensation to the ones deemed innocent by fair trial.

Some members..? You and Orange..?


Frankly I don't care what happens to the man; it's just another case of an idiot with a gun who killed someone. IMO another example of why there are far too many guns in this country.

[Darrell]

Originally Posted by dr wu23

Some members..? You and Orange..?


Frankly I don't care what happens to the man; it's just another case of an idiot with a gun who killed someone. IMO another example of why there are far too many guns in this country.

It only takes two to have a conversation. (I guess you don't count yourself? And I guess this demonstrates your inability to count other members as well).

And I disagree with your summation of the case. I see it as another drug thief getting his just deserts. No big loss IMHO! As to guns, yes there are too many guns in the hands of the bad guys (but not enough in the hands of the good guys).