THIS JUST IN on the Zimmerman case....

[Ravi]

If Zimmerman can't be prosecuted he can't be sued in civil court either. He is immune for both civil and criminal prosecution.

Untrue.

Trayvon Martin: Stand Your Ground Law Under Scrutiny After Florida Shooting - ABC News

Stand Your Ground "really ties law enforcement's hands," says Florida law professor Elizabeth Megale, "because immunity is defined so broadly." Immunity, she says, does not just mean you can't be prosecuted. It means you can't be detained.

What is Florida's 'Stand Your Ground' law? | HLNtv.com

Immunity from criminal prosecution and civil action for justifiable use of force can be found in Florida Statute § 776.032(1) (2012).

(1) A person who uses force as permitted in … s. 776.013…is justified in using such force and is immune from criminal prosecution and civil action for the use of such force... As used in this subsection, the term "criminal prosecution" includes arresting, detaining in custody, and charging or prosecuting the defendant.

That means you are immune from prosecution or civil liability because you are allowed to use the force. When “Stand Your Ground” is successfully asserted following a killing, the homicide is considered “justified,” which means there won’t be any criminal charges filed and you cannot held liable in a civil case either.

Of course it's true. You just don't like it to be true.

My bad. This law is even stupider than I imagined.

 

[dilloduck]

Untrue.

Trayvon Martin: Stand Your Ground Law Under Scrutiny After Florida Shooting - ABC News

Stand Your Ground "really ties law enforcement's hands," says Florida law professor Elizabeth Megale, "because immunity is defined so broadly." Immunity, she says, does not just mean you can't be prosecuted. It means you can't be detained.

What is Florida's 'Stand Your Ground' law? | HLNtv.com

Immunity from criminal prosecution and civil action for justifiable use of force can be found in Florida Statute § 776.032(1) (2012).

(1) A person who uses force as permitted in … s. 776.013…is justified in using such force and is immune from criminal prosecution and civil action for the use of such force... As used in this subsection, the term "criminal prosecution" includes arresting, detaining in custody, and charging or prosecuting the defendant.

That means you are immune from prosecution or civil liability because you are allowed to use the force. When “Stand Your Ground” is successfully asserted following a killing, the homicide is considered “justified,” which means there won’t be any criminal charges filed and you cannot held liable in a civil case either.

Of course it's true. You just don't like it to be true.

My bad. This law is even stupider than I imagined.

It's Florida. They don't even know how to vote properly.

 

[California Girl]

I see your point. She probably realizes that a GJ would not indict. If she does decide to prosecute, she earns points either way. Hell she may even get USAG if the O wins in November,

Yep, more about the politics than a desire to see justice done... what does it matter if an innocent man gets his life torn apart - perhaps goes to prison for years... as long as the drooling hordes get the outcome they want.

The "drooling hordes" wanted him brought to trial, a decent investigation conducted at the scene in respect that there was a dead seventeen year old cut down before he even tasted life. As it is, what we've seen is a prosecution of the dead, and I've seen you slam that as well, but the fact remains: if this is not fully examined, the dead seventeen year old is condemned as someone who deserved what happened to him; basically that his execution is posthumously rendered legitimate. You must understand why people reject that.

As an honest person, you have to acknowledge that if things were different, if Martin were white, for example, the media would go after Zimmerman as Hispanic, find some connection to the Latin Kings (even if it were through a distant 2nd or 3rd cousin), and under those circumstances the "lynching" would be socially sanctioned.

Hell, under those circumstances, Zimmerman would have been arrested and charged with something, and we wouldn't even be talking about this. You know that's true. You do.

There is no evidence that a 'decent investigation' did not take place. If there is no evidence to support wrong doing, then there is no need for a trial. You do get that, right?

If Martin was white and Zimmerman was black, I would still say what I am saying now... that we cannot convict anyone without evidence that they committed a crime. I prefer due process and trial by jury to ranting hordes and trial by media.

I'd appreciate it if you didn't tell me what I 'know to be true'. But.... I will defend a black person wrongly charged just as I would a white person. In fact, I don't give a shit what color skin anyone has... I like justice.

 

[Trajan]

Generally it means there is no evidence.... in other words.... he's innocent.

I will have to somewhat disagree and engage in a semantics debate with you my dear to make the point...

..it means they feel they cannot convict on what they have, not that hes innocent... grand injuries are notoriously supple and frankly a set up for the persecution to go forward more often that not.

 

[Katzndogz]

If Trayvon Martin beat Zimmerman up the law applies. That's the end of it. Libs want to use this incident to basically legalize home invasion robberies and random violence. That's the whole goal.

 

[California Girl]

Generally it means there is no evidence.... in other words.... he's innocent.

That doesn't necessarily mean someone is innocent (not speaking about this case in particular, but in general). Just like a jury vote of "not guilty" doesn't mean innocent.

I find that very sad. Yea, guilty people do get away with crimes.... and that is a shame... but with this case... I find it quite pathetic that people will carry on judging someone as 'guilty' just because they accept what the media tells them rather than form their own judgment.

 

[California Girl]

Generally it means there is no evidence.... in other words.... he's innocent.

I will have to somewhat disagree and engage in a semantics debate with you my dear to make the point...

..it means they feel they cannot convict on what they have, not that hes innocent... grand injuries are notoriously supple and frankly a set up for the persecution to go forward more often that not.

Engage me at your peril, Uncle Traj. I hope that's clear.

 

[Liability]

Generally it means there is no evidence.... in other words.... he's innocent.

I will have to somewhat disagree and engage in a semantics debate with you my dear to make the point...

..it means they feel they cannot convict on what they have, not that hes innocent... grand injuries are notoriously supple and frankly a set up for the persecution to go forward more often that not.

Engage me at your peril, Uncle Traj. I hope that's clear.

Some things just aren't all that clear.

 

[Barb]

Yep, more about the politics than a desire to see justice done... what does it matter if an innocent man gets his life torn apart - perhaps goes to prison for years... as long as the drooling hordes get the outcome they want.

The "drooling hordes" wanted him brought to trial, a decent investigation conducted at the scene in respect that there was a dead seventeen year old cut down before he even tasted life. As it is, what we've seen is a prosecution of the dead, and I've seen you slam that as well, but the fact remains: if this is not fully examined, the dead seventeen year old is condemned as someone who deserved what happened to him; basically that his execution is posthumously rendered legitimate. You must understand why people reject that.

As an honest person, you have to acknowledge that if things were different, if Martin were white, for example, the media would go after Zimmerman as Hispanic, find some connection to the Latin Kings (even if it were through a distant 2nd or 3rd cousin), and under those circumstances the "lynching" would be socially sanctioned.

Hell, under those circumstances, Zimmerman would have been arrested and charged with something, and we wouldn't even be talking about this. You know that's true. You do.

There is no evidence that a 'decent investigation' did not take place. If there is no evidence to support wrong doing, then there is no need for a trial. You do get that, right?

If Martin was white and Zimmerman was black, I would still say what I am saying now... that we cannot convict anyone without evidence that they committed a crime. I prefer due process and trial by jury to ranting hordes and trial by media.

I'd appreciate it if you didn't tell me what I 'know to be true'. But.... I will defend a black person wrongly charged just as I would a white person. In fact, I don't give a shit what color skin anyone has... I like justice.

"YOU" would say, 'YOU" would do. Jesus, Cali. YOU know damned well
You know? **** it, maybe YOU don't. Hell, you're not from around HERE, are YOU? My bad. Carry ON.

 

[koshergrl]

Angela Corey has simply confirmed what she said at the beginning she might do..

She said from the beginning that a grand jury wasn't necessary to make an arrest.

And look, now she's saying she won't take it to the grand jury.

What does it mean?

Well nothing, really. It means she doesn't need a grand jury. She might still go to trial. Probably not, but it's a possibility. She's just riding this out and giving herself as much time as possible...whichever way she's going....to get ready for the fall out.

 

[Barb]

If Trayvon Martin beat Zimmerman up the law applies. That's the end of it. Libs want to use this incident to basically legalize home invasion robberies and random violence. That's the whole goal.

There was no ******* home invasion. The kid was visiting his father and carrying CANDY home to his little brother.

 

[California Girl]

The "drooling hordes" wanted him brought to trial, a decent investigation conducted at the scene in respect that there was a dead seventeen year old cut down before he even tasted life. As it is, what we've seen is a prosecution of the dead, and I've seen you slam that as well, but the fact remains: if this is not fully examined, the dead seventeen year old is condemned as someone who deserved what happened to him; basically that his execution is posthumously rendered legitimate. You must understand why people reject that.

As an honest person, you have to acknowledge that if things were different, if Martin were white, for example, the media would go after Zimmerman as Hispanic, find some connection to the Latin Kings (even if it were through a distant 2nd or 3rd cousin), and under those circumstances the "lynching" would be socially sanctioned.

Hell, under those circumstances, Zimmerman would have been arrested and charged with something, and we wouldn't even be talking about this. You know that's true. You do.

There is no evidence that a 'decent investigation' did not take place. If there is no evidence to support wrong doing, then there is no need for a trial. You do get that, right?

If Martin was white and Zimmerman was black, I would still say what I am saying now... that we cannot convict anyone without evidence that they committed a crime. I prefer due process and trial by jury to ranting hordes and trial by media.

I'd appreciate it if you didn't tell me what I 'know to be true'. But.... I will defend a black person wrongly charged just as I would a white person. In fact, I don't give a shit what color skin anyone has... I like justice.

"YOU" would say, 'YOU" would do. Jesus, Cali. YOU know damned well
You know? **** it, maybe YOU don't. Hell, you're not from around HERE, are YOU? My bad. Carry ON.

Are you ranting, barb?

I defend due process... I don't defend trial by media... those who are screaming about Zimmerman's guilt do so purely because the media have chosen to present him as such. I have never trusted the media to provide decent coverage.... and the most useful thing this case has done is to prove that I'm right not to trust the media.

 

[Ernie S.]

It won't be manslaughter either; that's a felony in Florida.

Let me google that for you

I hope the Martin family also files a civil suit against Zimmerman for wrongful death.

And I hope Zimmerman files suit against NBC and Spike Lee.

That asshole should not be out running around his neighborhood with a loaded gun.

Why not? Under Florida law he has the right to carry a concealed weapon.

He went against everything the homeowner's association dictated to his sorry ass last January. He killed a kid.

He killed a 17 year old who was larger than him, apparently when the young man tried to take his gun.

And you ******* righties want to defend him with no further investigation. You're disgusting.

Sorry. It's you that wants to convict Mr. Zimmerman without sufficient evidence to indict. It is you that is disgusting. Most sane people wait for facts and don't assume that the white guy is wrong if a "poor innocent black child" dies.

I hope you find yourself at the end of a barrel owned by a redneck like Zimmerman some day. And you know how to pray.

It is unlikely that I will find myself on the wrong end of a gun. I don't walk through residential communities late at night acting as if I may be scoping out who I might rob.

I removed your Verdana font and large type size. If I were you, I wouldn't attract attention to my idiocy. You're welcome.

 

[California Girl]

That doesn't necessarily mean someone is innocent (not speaking about this case in particular, but in general). Just like a jury vote of "not guilty" doesn't mean innocent.

I find that very sad. Yea, guilty people do get away with crimes.... and that is a shame... but with this case... I find it quite pathetic that people will carry on judging someone as 'guilty' just because they accept what the media tells them rather than form their own judgment.

Kasey Anthony.....

"It is better that 100 guilty go free than convict 1 innocent". Was Kasey guilty? I don't know. As is my usual stance, I remained neutral on the issue.... the jury said no. That is our system.

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

It won't be manslaughter either; that's a felony in Florida.

Let me google that for you

Thank you. From your link:

Rule 7. The Indictment and the Information | Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure | LII / Legal Information Institute

http://www.floridabar.org/TFB/TFBResources.nsf/0/BDFE1551AD291A3F85256B29004BF892/$FILE/Criminal.pdf?OpenElement

It appears the defendant must waive his right to a Grand Jury indictment. In Florida, felonies can be charged with a bill of information, provided they aren't capital offenses.

If Zimmerman did commit a crime I doubt it was capital.

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

I think it means if there is a charge, it won't be a felony. A Grand Jury would be required for that.

Wrong.

Grand juries are only required at the federal level.

Wrong. They are required in Florida for certain cases. I was wrong that they are required for any felony.

I meant they are only Constitutionally required at the federal level. A state may decide its own rules for when they are required.

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

Great, let's have people with an agenda making the decisions instead of a jury of peers. Perhaps we should just let judges decide by themselves and scrap the whole jury process... that way, y'all could railroad anyone you dislike into prison.

Why do you presume Martin's guilt?

I don't.

Sure you do. You assume the shooting was in self defense. If it was in self defense that means Martin was trying to commit a crime against Zimmerman. So you assume Martin was attempting a crime agaisnt Zimmerman.

My whole stance - no matter what you ******* drooling hordes have wanted - has been that none of us know enough to determine guilt or innocence....

Your stance appears to be that he should not be tried.

because I don't have ALL the facts.

And you're opposed to a trial jury determining those facts.

I'm weird like that... I require ALL the facts before I find anyone guilty or innocent of anything.

What are you, a judge? A member of a jury? You don't get to find anyone guilty or innocent.

Right now.... this looks more like a railroading than a genuine desire for justice.

Looks like? I thought you needed all the facts first.

 

[Liability]

905.16 Duties of grand jury.
The grand jury shall inquire into every offense triable within the county for which any person has been held to answer, if an indictment has not been found or an information or affidavit filed for the offense, and all other indictable offenses triable within the county that are presented to it by the state attorney or her or his designated assistant or otherwise come to its knowledge.

-- Florida Laws: FL Statutes - Title XLVII Criminal Procedure and Corrections Section 905.01 Number and procurement of grand jury; replacement of member. ( Florida Laws: FL Statutes - Title XLVII Criminal Procedure and Corrections Section 905.01 Number and procurement of grand jury; replacement of member. - Florida Attorney Resources - Florida Laws )

So, I think that means that since Zimmerman has NOT (yet) been held to answer, it is not necessary that it be a Grand Jury that brings the Felony charge(s) against him.

But I never seem to be able to square with the US Constitution Fifth Amendment the bringing of felony charges without a presentment before a grand jury.

FIFTH AMENDMENT

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; * * * *

 

[Barb]

There is no evidence that a 'decent investigation' did not take place. If there is no evidence to support wrong doing, then there is no need for a trial. You do get that, right?

If Martin was white and Zimmerman was black, I would still say what I am saying now... that we cannot convict anyone without evidence that they committed a crime. I prefer due process and trial by jury to ranting hordes and trial by media.

I'd appreciate it if you didn't tell me what I 'know to be true'. But.... I will defend a black person wrongly charged just as I would a white person. In fact, I don't give a shit what color skin anyone has... I like justice.

"YOU" would say, 'YOU" would do. Jesus, Cali. YOU know damned well
You know? **** it, maybe YOU don't. Hell, you're not from around HERE, are YOU? My bad. Carry ON.

Are you ranting, barb?

I defend due process... I don't defend trial by media... those who are screaming about Zimmerman's guilt do so purely because the media have chosen to present him as such. I have never trusted the media to provide decent coverage.... and the most useful thing this case has done is to prove that I'm right not to trust the media.

The American "media" wouldn't have touched this case if it weren't pushed to do so, neither would the so-called "justice" system. That is the POINT. I don't want this tried by the media, but I do want it TRIED. You AREN'T from around here, you're from Canada. You experience things differently, therefore you SEE them differently. Its APPLICATION, at play here, and equal representation / protection (in this case, especially "protection) under the law that people are screaming for.

I don't expect you to fully understand, but I hoped that you would have tried to. I didn't think that it would be so difficult to understand.

 

[koshergrl]

Sorry, everybody who is accused of a crime isn't forced to go to trial.

That's why they say "innocent until proven guilty". There has to be enough evidence that shows a good possibility that a crime has been committed before people are dragged up on charges.

Otherwise I could say "this person is a child molester" and based upon nothing more than the fact that I said it, that person would be tried.