New Posts
By:
Filters
  • Hi there guest! Welcome to PoliticalJack.com. Register for free to join our community?

Why hasn't Zimmerman been charged yet?

fairsheet

fairsheet

Senator
C'mon....EVERYone is hollering for him to be charged. The left wants his head on a platter of course, and now....so does the Fox/GOP! What does the City of Sanford and the State of Florida have to lose? This one should be a no-brainer! How in the world, do we explain their failure thus far?

Well....I'll tell ya. There IS only one plausible explanation for reticence and it's that they're sore afraid that under Florida's "stand your ground" law, they couldn't actually convict him. And, that would be the worst possible outcome, because it would shift the focus to the law itself, and all the snivelers who legislated it in the first place.
 
Ummm.... the Grand Jury is going to hear this case. Sorry if it's not fast enough for you.
 
Where is the law flawed here fairsheets?

A person who is not engaged in an unlawful activity, and who is attacked in any other place where he or she has a right to be has no duty to retreat and has the right to stand his or her ground and meet force with force, including deadly force if he or she reasonably believes it is necessary to do so to prevent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the commission of a forcible felony.
Click to expand...
 
Yes, I agree but it appears there is a witness saying Zimmerman was on the ground (perhaps when the shot was fired) so I guess they have to sort it out with respect to "self defense" issues. But if you stop someone walking along the road and accost them and they deck you, you don't get to shoot them dead unless they are armed and draw on you. It seems pretty straightforward to me.
 
Number_58 said:
Where is the law flawed here fairsheets?
Click to expand...

Two things:

-"he or she reasonably believes"....Now a lot of people have expressed their feeling that this is equal to: "what a reasonable person would believe". But in terms of the law, we absolutely cannot make that assumption. The defense WILL make the argument that these are two very different things. And, their argument will be that laws routinely include the language, "what a reasonable person would believe". So.....why was this law drafted differently? There must be a reason....and the logical assumption would be that it was intended to mean something different.

-"forcible felony" ....."Forcible felony"....is so broad and virtually all-encompassing, that it would be virtually impossible to disprove a lay-person's "belief" that a forcible felony was going down. What you say?.....you know that that kid who was taking a leak on your lawn, wasn't committing a "forcible felony"? Well...wait a minute, he WAS "urinating in public" and he was "exposing himself". How do you propose to prove that a non-lawyer would know whether or not either of those "crimes" falls under the rubrik of "forcible felony"? And..if you think all you have to prove is that they AREN'T forcible felonies, you're missing the point. The only thing that matters, is that the shooter of the pee-er, "believed" that they were forcible felonies.
 
Lukey said:
Yes, I agree but it appears there is a witness saying Zimmerman was on the ground (perhaps when the shot was fired) so I guess they have to sort it out with respect to "self defense" issues. But if you stop someone walking along the road and accost them and they deck you, you don't get to shoot them dead unless they are armed and draw on you. It seems pretty straightforward to me.
Click to expand...

So what? Lets say Martin threw a punch at Zimmerman. Martin (and a reasonable person in that circumstance) would have a legitmate fear for his own safety. That means that Stand Your Ground let his assault Zimmerman

At the same time Stand Your Ground let Zimmerman shoot Martin for using his rights under Stand Your Ground


This is a stupid stupid law.
 
degsme, This law allows a person to actually create a self defense argument for killing someone. All you have to do is start a fight and then kill the person saying you feared for your life. Now right wingers are saying that it is Martin's fault he was killed because he tried to defend himself.
 
Yeah, not to mention the prospects of charging the guy who has no motive, no history of racial intolerance, with a crime for which there is little evidence, few witnesses to dispute him, and a high risk to reward of a large settlement in his favor for the unlawful arrest lawsuit he'd bring.

I'd wait for the FBI to finish before spoiling the chances of any successful prosecution...what do you think?
 
Dino said:
Yeah, not to mention the prospects of charging the guy who has no motive, no history of racial intolerance,
Click to expand...
Um hint. Racial bigotry is plenty of motive by itself. As for a History of racial bias? Sorry there absolutely is evidence of this. He has chased AT LEAST one young black boy all the way to the kids house.

with a crime for which there is little evidence,
Click to expand...
Ah yes, that's right Florida now is the land where you can shoot unarmed people in public places without facing a criminal charge....

Where this will end up is with the DoJ having to prosecute Zimmerman for "violation of Martin's Civil Rights".... and that will make Florida really ugly for the GOP.
 
IndependentinWis said:
degsme, This law allows a person to actually create a self defense argument for killing someone. All you have to do is start a fight and then kill the person saying you feared for your life. Now right wingers are saying that it is Martin's fault he was killed because he tried to defend himself.
Click to expand...

Well Kinda. There is a section that explicitly precludes the actual starting of the fight and then killing the person. However, you can easily get around this simply by acting in a 100% law abiding yet potentially threatening manner (as Zimmerman seems to have done) - at which point any hostile response; even one that is LEGAL based on the victim's invocation of Stand Your Ground rights ; becomes the basis for your right to kill them.
 
fairsheet said:
...Well....I'll tell ya. There IS only one plausible explanation for reticence and it's that they're sore afraid that under Florida's "stand your ground" law, they couldn't actually convict him. And, that would be the worst possible outcome, because it would shift the focus to the law itself, and all the snivelers who legislated it in the first place.
Click to expand...

YES!!

Because of the way the law was written being so broad to assure someone who "Feels" threaten can use a weapon

The NRA wrote this law for sniveling legislatures
 
degsme said:
So what? Lets say Martin threw a punch at Zimmerman. Martin (and a reasonable person in that circumstance) would have a legitmate fear for his own safety. That means that Stand Your Ground let his assault Zimmerman

At the same time Stand Your Ground let Zimmerman shoot Martin for using his rights under Stand Your Ground


This is a stupid stupid law.
Click to expand...

EXACTLY!!!

It does not stipulate who's the aggressor in ANY case, it was written waaaaaaaaay too broadly
 
"The GOP"???

Oh, does the GOP have some kind of stand against people's civil rights?
Or did that standard also just emerge from this one case?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Back
Top