bwahahahahahahaha!!!
Just in case anyone reading this has the slightest doubt that it’s utterly without factual and legal foundation…
Florida statutes § 493.6100 et seq relate to the licensing of persons providing security services. § 493.6101(18) et seq lay out definitions for the various activities performed thereunder, and each requires that the activities be performed for consideration. That is, a person who “…, for consideration, advertises as providing or performs bodyguard services or otherwise guards persons or property; attempts to prevent theft or unlawful taking of goods, wares, and merchandise; or attempts to prevent the misappropriation or concealment of goods, wares or merchandise, money, bonds, stocks, choses in action, notes, or other documents, papers, and articles of value or procurement of the return thereof.”
Zimmerman, of course, wasn’t getting paid for his services. The mandates of the law that applies to Class G licensees does not have any applicability whatsoever to Zimmerman.
But this might be the most novel theory yet for Zimmerman’s criminal liability.
Bricker, your interpretaton doesn’t make sense. You’re essentially arguing that it was lawful for Zimmerman to behave like an armed security guard just as long as he didn’t get paid for it. Which is retarded when you consider that we’re talking about him running after “suspects” without having the proper training. Payment for services doesn’t figure into at all.
See here: Home - Smart Hawk Security
bolding mine
Noticeably absent from this is language about receiving money. The word “employment” isn’t even mentioned.
bolding mine
GZ was not an armed security guard. GZ was not a paid armed security guard. GZ didn’t work for a company that required him to have a Class G license. GZ was driving to the store when he spotted a suspicious person. Why would anyone believe that a Florida gun owner with a concealed carry permit also have to have a Class G license to drive to the store or to walk around in his own neighborhood while armed? Florida law already permitted GZ to carry a firearm in FLA.
Even if Zimmerman was carrying his weapon illegally, you would still have to prove he wasn’t acting in self defence. That would, in that case, that he had a means of escape other than shooting Martin. Which means proving Martin wasn’t on top of him bashing his head into the ground.
Congratulations, by the way, on being demonstrably wrong about something which, even if you were right about, wouldn’t matter. Really, why do you keep posting here when everything you say is proved wrong?
doorhinge, the minute that GZ claimed he followed Martin at the urge of the dispatcher (which is a lie but whatever), he confessed to assisting the cops apprehend a potential criminal. His permit (assuming he had a valid one…we keep assuming that he did but why should we?) forbidded him from carrying a gun while patrolling the neighborhood as a watchman. Which is exactly what he did when tracked after Martin, first by truck then by foot.
Look, if you disagree that that he needed a Class G permit to do what he did, I could care less. It’s a parenthetical issue anyway given the more pressing problems facing his case. Just don’t be surprised if it comes up at trial.
His permit doesn’t forbid that, and he wasn’t on duty as a neighbourhood watchman when it happened. So, again, both wrong and irrelevant.
The point of the laws that allow carrying weapons and self defence are to allow someone to have and use a weapon in a dangerous situation, not to penalise them for doing som
Yes, that’s true – but that cite is not a quote from the statutes. It’s a business. Zimmerman is not required to conform his conduct to the words written by www.security-license.com’s marketing manager.
The words of the statute, however, DO mention receiving money. § 493.6101(18), which defines the terms used by the section of law that regulates Class G licenses, explictly says:
That’s hilarious that you’re quoting some company’s marketing language from a website as though it’s the law. It reminds me of when you started quoting about.com’s rendition of California law to prove your claims. Good times. Always good for a laugh, ywtf; not good at all for actual legal info, as I and every other lawyer that posts here have told you several kajillion times now.
If the finding of the trial court is that Zimmerman needed a Class G license to do what he did, I promise to donate $2,000 to a charity of your choice and send you the proof of donation.
You’re claiming that the Dispatcher deputized Zimmerman when he asked him what the suspicious person looked like, what he was wearing and the direction he ran off to?
As you can see, there’s an ongoing internal investigation regarding the release of Trayvon’s criminal record. Oddly enough, if you get into this special program, even though yo’re a criminal, it doesn’t go on your record.
The defense also lacks the videos from Kohl’s cross the street from the east enterance to the housing development, the videos from the 7-11 parking lot, the security camera from an apartment complex on the route back, they recieved blank tapes from the prosecutors. Nor do they have DD’s cellphone records, to compare her phone calls to Trayvon’s.
The prosecution is required, by the Florida laws (and the Constitution, according by US Supreme Court) to turn over to defense all exculpatory evidence. From what I googled, that means any evidence that:
-
tends to show that the defendant is innocent of the charges. . . . or
-
may mitigate sentence. . . . or
-
can be used to impeach a state witness, or otherwise cast doubt on the prosecution case. Impeachment evidence must be turned over even if has nothing to do with the defendant’s innocence.
I think the prosecution will have a hard time defending their actions under these rules. Especially under rule #3.
Is there a point at which it becomes too late? I suspect the prosecution cannot simply hand over the rest of the evidence the night before the trial begins and claim that they did their duty to disclose. Doesn’t the defense have to get a chance to examine the evidence?
I also tried to read thru the link about the internal investigation. Correct me if I am wrong - there was no mention of any Martin misdeeds that we didn’t already know about. The vandalism, drugs, and stealing jewelry has already been brought out.
Anything else I missed?
Regards,
Shodan
Unless we get access to the files, we won’t be certain but Omara did refer to evidence for multiple acts of violence by Trayvon, so Bricker may have been wrong about Trayvon not having a history of such behavior.
I’d have to surf back a bunch of pages but essentially the defense has been looking into Trayvon’s private life. Specifically if he was involved in street fighting.
And that would be relevant…how, exactly?
It would be an indication that he likes street fights. If you’ll recall, DD thought he’d gotten into a fight. It was apparently no big deal because she didn’t call the police.
And ‘street fighting’ is related to ‘propensity to mug people that I’ve spent the last few minutes running from’…how, exactly?
People who have started a lot of street fights in the past are more likely to start street fights in the future.
Also, the Pope is Catholic.
Regards,
Shodan