(04-13-2012, 09:35 AM)Lady Cop Wrote: [ -> ]a bond hearing probably will be held on April 20 to determine if Z will be allowed to post bail and leave jail, O'Mara said late Thursday, according to a report by the Associated Press.
Zimmerman's attorney says he believes it will be at least six months before the second-degree murder case goes to trial.
I gather it may
never go to a jury trial if a judge determines that he was within his rights under the stand your ground law. In that case, the whole thing gets thrown out, right?
IF O'Mara moves for an immunity hearing citing self-defense, it could be thrown out if the judge agreed.
IF that happened i would expect some serious unrest in the area.
I try to see the positive in situations, even something as awful as a life lost & it's good that the law surrounding this will be revisited and changes will surely be made.
There is nothing wrong with the castle laws.
The problem is when people think that if the law works then it must be unjust.
If dumbshit is aquitted based on the stand your ground law, the law still worked, it is only based in the bias of those who think it shouldn't have that a change needs to be made in the law.
(04-13-2012, 01:07 PM)IMaDick Wrote: [ -> ]There is nothing wrong with the castle laws.
The problem is when people think that if the law works then it must be unjust.
If dumbshit is aquitted based on the stand your ground law, the law still worked, it is only based in the bias of those who think it shouldn't have that a change needs to be made in the law.
I haven't read this whole thread, I quickly scroll through & hope I get the highlights. Isn't it the shooters stance that he applied the stand your ground law to his situation as did the police the night this occurred?
Yeah and I think the stand your ground law differs from the castle laws.
(04-13-2012, 01:39 PM)username Wrote: [ -> ]Yeah and I think the stand your ground law differs from the castle laws.
Would you like to explain what differences you see in them?
Or are you satisfied with what you posted above?
just now...she may have to recuse herself.
![[Image: 16x9]](http://www.trbimg.com/img-4f88683f/turbine/os-george-zimmerman-hearing-trayvon-martin-20120413/400/16x9)
OS
SANFORD – The judge hearing the George Zimmerman case today announced that her husband works for the law firm of Mark NeJame, who's been hired to act as a CNN analyst for this case.
Circuit Judge Jessica Recksiedler said she had an ethical obligation to disclose that and allow Zimmerman's attorney or the special prosecutor to ask her to step down.
No one's made that request yet, but Zimmerman's attorney, Mark O'Mara, said that's an issue that worries him and next week he may ask her to give the case to another judge.
The judge scheduled the 10-minute hearing on her own, specifically to tell attorneys about the issue.
Zimmerman did not appear. Neither did the attorneys, who were tied into the courtroom by phone.
When Zimmerman and his family were looking for a lawyer, O'Mara told the judge, they talked to NeJame and even signed paperwork. NeJame, however, decided he'd rather be a case analyst for CNN, O'Mara said.
NeJame then gave O'Mara's name and those of other attorneys to the family, and they chose O'Mara, he said.
The judge's husband, Jason Recksiedler, works at NeJame's firm but does civil work, mostly personal injury, wrongful death and medical malpractice, according to the firm's website.
Bernie de la Rionda, the lead prosecutor in the case, said he had no intention of asking the judge to disqualify herself.
You explain the differences if you see them.
If I wanted to read the law I would have done that several years ago.
(04-13-2012, 02:46 PM)IMaDick Wrote: [ -> ]You explain the differences if you see them.
If I wanted to read the law I would have done that several years ago.
You must have been a stellar cop.
(04-13-2012, 02:46 PM)IMaDick Wrote: [ -> ]You explain the differences if you see them.
If I wanted to read the law I would have done that several years ago.
yeah, why check statutes/differences? easier to make that shit up.
oh Dickie. 
they're pretty laid back about the pesky details out west.
(04-13-2012, 02:52 PM)Lady Cop Wrote: [ -> ]they're pretty laid back about the pesky details out west.
User the simple fact is that the castle laws are all inclusive, the stand your ground law is a castle law just a different form by statutes and scope.
By the way no one is ever required to try to escape before they protect themselves.
even in the states without castle laws you are still not required to be killed without defending yourself.
the essential difference is that castle laws apply to you IN YOUR HOME, car and workplace (castle). stand your ground is anywhere.
The 2011 Florida Statutes
Title XLVI
CRIMES
Chapter 776
JUSTIFIABLE USE OF FORCE
View Entire Chapter
776.013 Home protection; use of deadly force; presumption of fear of death or great bodily harm.—
(1) A person is presumed to have held a reasonable fear of imminent peril of death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another when using defensive force that is intended or likely to cause death or great bodily harm to another if:
(a) The person against whom the defensive force was used was in the process of unlawfully and forcefully entering, or had unlawfully and forcibly entered, a dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle, or if that person had removed or was attempting to remove another against that person’s will from the dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle; and
(b) The person who uses defensive force knew or had reason to believe that an unlawful and forcible entry or unlawful and forcible act was occurring or had occurred.
(2) The presumption set forth in subsection (1) does not apply if:
(a) The person against whom the defensive force is used has the right to be in or is a lawful resident of the dwelling, residence, or vehicle, such as an owner, lessee, or titleholder, and there is not an injunction for protection from domestic violence or a written pretrial supervision order of no contact against that person; or
(b) The person or persons sought to be removed is a child or grandchild, or is otherwise in the lawful custody or under the lawful guardianship of, the person against whom the defensive force is used; or
© The person who uses defensive force is engaged in an unlawful activity or is using the dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle to further an unlawful activity; or
(d) The person against whom the defensive force is used is a law enforcement officer, as defined in s. 943.10(14), who enters or attempts to enter a dwelling, residence, or vehicle in the performance of his or her official duties and the officer identified himself or herself in accordance with any applicable law or the person using force knew or reasonably should have known that the person entering or attempting to enter was a law enforcement officer.
(3) 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.
(4) A person who unlawfully and by force enters or attempts to enter a person’s dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle is presumed to be doing so with the intent to commit an unlawful act involving force or violence.
(5) As used in this section, the term:
(a) “Dwelling” means a building or conveyance of any kind, including any attached porch, whether the building or conveyance is temporary or permanent, mobile or immobile, which has a roof over it, including a tent, and is designed to be occupied by people lodging therein at night.
(b) “Residence” means a dwelling in which a person resides either temporarily or permanently or is visiting as an invited guest.
© “Vehicle” means a conveyance of any kind, whether or not motorized, which is designed to transport people or property.
As I understand it this is the major change to the Florida law that included the "Castle Doctrine" to the whole issue of self defence. Before the change, if someone was breaking into your house through the front door and you could get out the back door safely you hae the rather ownerous duty to escape if you could. The law did not require that you already be attacked or killed before defending yourself. Now, fortunately, you can smoke em when they get inside.
The downside of this rather vaguely written clause leaves the door open to useing deadly force to end a fight you started, or at least thats what the defence lawyers are doing.
(3) 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.
I think it's obvious to everyone following this case that the biggest piece of evidence will be whether or not Trayvon attacked Z. If T legitimately attacked and that can be proved, I think Z used appropriate measures in this case. If not, Z needs to serve 20-life.
Something that I think could be looked up would be, in the previous 40+ times Z called 911, how many times did he draw/discharge his weapon?
If this is in fact the only time that it can be proven, why did he choose to brandish/use his gun this particular time? Did he in fact fear for his personal safety?
Many have made reference to Z stalking T. The police were well aware this is what he does. He's a community 'watchman'. Did he step over the lines along the way? We don't really know.
All I know is, it does look like protocol was followed after the killing. He was in custody at the station and was interrogated.
I have a son who's 18. I wouldn't want him killed like this, either, so I'm empathetic to T's family.
Something tells me though, that Z did not just decide to go kill a young black kid that night for sport.
I don't think he did it for sport but if you chase people around and you're not wearing a uniform, bad things can happen.