True, but O’Mara isn’t running for elected office. Even Judge Lester said he didn’t like the law, but it was his job to enforce it. I think we can agree that the law wasn’t designed for the convenience of lawyers. They really don’t want citizens looking over their shoulder and second guessing them.
BTW, did you look at what Zimmerman bought at the commisary? If he doesn’t make bond, they are going to need a crane to get him into court by his trial.
I doubt it has anything to do with that, since they know people are going to do that anyway. It’s more about:
Making it easier to seat an impartial jury
Keeping witnesses’ recollections from being tainted/affected by GZ’s statements as to his version of events
Protecting witnesses from harassment from media/wackos
I couldn’t possibly care less what he is eating in jail and am surprised any media outlet would deem that worthy of publication.
New bond hearing scheduled for June 29th.
I am eager to see how hard they will push the suggestion of flight risk, and how Lester assesses it.
From your link:
Yes. Correct. And, I might add, exactly what I’ve been repeating in these threads.
If the jail food is prepared and/or delivered by inmates, he’s probably worried about ‘additional’ ingredients.
I’m certain they have reasons, but whether they are valid reasons is another thing. There was so much pretrial publicity in this case, I think the ship has already sailed on 1 and 2. I can’t see where publishing truthful information does any further damage compared to the half truths and untruths circulated in the media earlier.
I frankly don’t see where seating a jury is a big problem. I know a lot of people, even people with college degrees, who pay no attention to current events. If a person doesn’t read the newspaper, doesn’t watch the news on television, does read it on internet, then the possibility of contamination seems remote.
I’ve already stated my opinion on Witness memories. Any changes from their initial statements to police need to be taken with a large grain of salt.
On 3, I actually agree. I don’t see where publishing witness names and addresses is really useful. Their names will be published at trial, so redacting their names is only a stopgap.
On what Zimmerman buys at the commissary.
The first time that Zimmerman went to jail, I read about his commisary purchases in an **English **Newspaper. Apparently his shopping habits are international news.
The part I don’t understand is why Zimmerman needs thermal underwear.
Trust me, I think you’ve repeated it enough now, that we’re all well aware of that.
I just hope that by replying to me, you’re not implying that I ever disagreed with that. And I really don’t think many other people do either.
ETA: It seems practically unanimous how the law works, and it seems practically unanimous that the law is bullshit. Who disagrees with that?
I disagree. I’ve lived in Florida since the eighties and from the news stories I’ve read back before SYG the SYG law is just codifying what juries do when the events go to trial.
It is possible that the law needs some tweaks, since I’m not clear about how chasing someone down that street and stabbing them to death is self defense. I regard the current version of the law as the beta version. We need to review the actual cases and discuss where the law needs some adjustment. No law works correctly 100% of the time.
I should explain if the dead person is a burglar or rapist or mugger, then you are wasting your time trying to get a conviction from a Florida jury.
You say you disagree, but you seem to agree that the law, as written, is flawed. I don’t see how any reasonable person could think otherwise.
And FTR, I’ve lived in Florida since the mid-70’s and am a gun owner who doesn’t object to the proportionate use of deadly force in self-defense, or the principles of the Castle Doctrine. I just don’t think the SYG law was necessary, or if it was, that it needed to place such a high burden on law enforcement and the prosecution. They seemed to be handling justifiable uses of deadly force in self-defense just fine, IMO. We didn’t need any tweaks to the law that encouraged or emboldened more people to shoot each other - we were doing just fine in that regard.
You might want to stop by the thread in which “Stand Your Ground” hypotheticals are being explored. I don’t think Little Nemo is on board with this.
Not me.
You want to junk the law and I want to improve it. I don’t think those positions are equivalent. Maybe you should discuss specific cases where the prosecution wasn’t able to get an indictment where they could under the previous law.
I like the idea of the SYG hearing. Since it requires a higher evidentiary standard than the trial, it should nip pointless prosecutions in the bud. I wonder if this could be applied to other crimes?
Did you read the article in the Tampa Bay Times? The SYG law is a criminals best friend.
It’s ironic that the NRA fights every effort to keep handguns out of criminal’s hands, and then they sponsor a law that gives them legal cover too. Maybe it’s not ironic, maybe the NRA is just pro-crime. It makes sense: more crime means more members and more gun sales.
If you think that something resembling SYG is beneficial and will nip pointless prosecutions in the bud, perhaps it is you who should discuss specific cases of pointless prosecutions that occurred prior to the enactment of the SYG law.
Convince me that there was actually a problem that was addressed by the SYG law, and it wasn’t just an unnecessary law pushed through to appeal to the baser instincts of the more “Harry Callahan-esque” factions of the gun-lobby.
I’ll try, but finding references to pre google newspaper stories is hard and the Orlando Sentinel database doesn’t go back far enough. Give me a few days to find some examples.
On another board, it was pointed out that Zimmerman donors are doing damage to the pro-SYG cause by supporting Z’s defense. And I have to agree with that. It’s another irony to ponder on.
Of all the possible poster children for SYG, Zimmerman should be considered the least attractive. We aren’t dealing with some sweet-natured but scrappy grandma who refused to back down when some mugger tried to steal her bingo winnings one night. No, we’re dealing with someone who has had multiple run ins with the law, who perjured himself at his bond hearing, and who killed an unarmed teen on their way home from the store. Even if you don’t think he’s guilty of murder, it’s hard to see him as anything but a creep.
But instead of distancing themselves from this idiot–or at least taking a neutral position–people are throwing money at him. But why? If Zimmerman walks, I guarrantee people will see it as an injustice at least partially attributal to SYG. He would forever be known as the guy who got away with murder because of ridiculously flawed law, and there would be a bipartisan movement to scrap it. Not just in Florida, but probably other states.
But a conviction won’t bring out that response the same way. If he gets sent to prison, you won’t see waves of emails being sent to congressmen, demanding laws to be revoked and whatnot. People will likely forget about the SYG and it’ll stay on the books.
So we may see, once again, Zimmerman donors biting themselves in the ass. If you support SYG, I recommend not giving Z one single dime.
Because the current information indicates he defended himself from a brutal attack. And not just an attack, it was an extended period of time. As of right now, based on the information at hand, Zimmerman was the victim.
That can change. Maybe it will.
IIRC, Florida’s SYG law was signed into law by Jeb Bush. We’re not talking about going back to historical archives on microfiche, here. If there was a problem pervasive enough to require such a significant change to existing law, it shouldn’t be that difficult to find some examples.
If it is difficult to find examples, I submit to you that SYG couldn’t have been very necessary.
I’m doing a google search on ‘florida homicide acquitted trial self-defense’ prior to 2006 and I got 54,600 hits. The trouble is that I actually have read the articles to see if they fit. In a lot of cases there isn’t enough data in the article to tell. If the jury comes back in a few hours with not guilty, then it might be a ‘why did they bother’ case. The trouble is that cases I actually remember reading from 20 years ago would literally be a matter of digging through microfiche. I tried to search the Orlando Sentinel database that claims to go back to 1985, but key word search only seems to work back to 2001.
Scrappy grandmas don’t need a legal defense fund, because the don’t indicted in the first place. You need to pick a better example of someone who actually got indicted.
I can think of better examples, but they didn’t get this kind of pre trial publicity. Who gives money to someone they never heard of?
Sure. Consider this case.
Marissa Alexander would make a much better poster girl for SYG than Zimmerman. She didn’t even kill anyone and she’s been charged. People have hitched their wagons to the wrong horse. The world will laugh at them when their support backfires.