Question about the Trayvon Martin Case?

[Fear_Itself]

@Terr

Citing an article in a newspaper is not citing the law. There is nothing in the law that requires the defendant to bring any evidence.

In the hearing, the prosecutor will present her reasons to the judge to think that the immunity doesn’t apply. If she doesn’t, or if the judge considers those reasons/evidence insufficient Zimmerman walks. If she does, yes, Zimmerman will have to show her wrong or the immunity doesn’t exist. But first, she has to present the damning evidence. Without it, Zimmerman is not required to present anything other than his say so.

You are wrong. Plain as that. You are not arguing from an informed position.

[Terr]

@Fear_Itself

You are wrong. Plain as that. You are not arguing from an informed position.

There is nothing in the law that requires the defendant to bring the evidence of his innocence. If you disagree, cite the portion of the law that does.

[elucidator]

One thing bugging me, and perhaps irrelevant, as most things that bug me are…

I keep hearing Zimmerman being referred to as a “neighborhood watch volunteer”. When this story first broke, or at least got wide attention, I recall some contention over that point, that he was not part of any recognized neighborhood watch organization. So, is this spin? Or simple laziness? Or what?

[Fear_Itself]

@Terr

There is nothing in the law that requires the defendant to bring the evidence of his innocence. If you disagree, cite the portion of the law that does.

I have posted a cite for how the law is applied in court. Perhaps Bricker can enlighten you. I am satisfied that I have won this point.

[elucidator]

Hey, don’t get in Terr’s way! He is very busy proving for us that his law is very badly written. Maybe it wasn’t intended to offer vigilante licenses, but that is the effect. Let the boy rock and roll!

[Terr]

@Fear_Itself

I have posted a cite for how the law is applied in court. Perhaps Bricker can enlighten you. I am satisfied that I have won this point.

Self-congratulation is the sincerest form of flattery. But kinda pointless.

[Dr.Colossus]

@Frylock

You need to understand Bricker isn’t telling you what he thinks is proportional, he’s telling you what he thinks the law says is proportional.

In this case, he’s uncontroversially correct. The florida law in question counts deadly force as proportional to a broken nose. No one who has read and understood the law and the subsequent caselaw could disagree.

Bricker isn’t advocating for the view that this is a good law. He hasn’t said anything one way or another on that. He’s simply explaining what the law is.

it’s actually still his interpretation–
so far he’s as well interpreted that zimmerman could not legally be detained (he just decided he’d adjust the definition of “detained”)
as well he’s interpreted that zimmerman couldn’t be arrested.

and. well. 0-2.

it sounded as if he was saying killing someone for bloodying your nose is a proportional response. maybe he didn’t mean it as a person opinion but his interpretation of precedents. at any rate, he’s gotten absolutely everything wrong so far, so i’m not sure why he’s still playing jr lawyer.

[Kimmy_Gibbler]

@Terr

Citing an article in a newspaper is not citing the law. There is nothing in the law that requires the defendant to bring any evidence.

In the hearing, the prosecutor will present her reasons to the judge to think that the immunity doesn’t apply. If she doesn’t, or if the judge considers those reasons/evidence insufficient Zimmerman walks. If she does, yes, Zimmerman will have to show her wrong or the immunity doesn’t exist. But first, she has to present the damning evidence. Without it, Zimmerman is not required to present anything other than his say so.

And true, judges in some cases, according to the article, ignore the law. But what can you do.

Quite incorrect.

See Dennis v. State, 17 So. 3d 305 (Fla. 2010), which held:

To be entitled to dismissal under rule 3.190(c)(4) [pursuant to a “Stand Your Ground” immunity claim], “the defendant must ‘demonstrate that the undisputed facts fail to establish a prima facie case.’” Dorelus v. State, 747 So. 2d 368, 373 (Fla. 1999) (quoting State v. Pollock, 600 So. 2d 1313, 1314 (Fla. 3d DCA 1992)).

The Supreme Court of Florida endorsed the procedure laid out by the District Court of Appeal in Peterson v. State, 983 So. 2d 27 (Fla. Ct. App. 2008), which wrote:

The court further determined that a defendant raising the immunity would have the burden of establishing the factual prerequisites to the immunity claim by a preponderance of the evidence. The court imposed the same burden of proof as it would in motions for postconviction relief or motions to suppress.

Likewise, we hold that a defendant may raise the question of statutory immunity pretrial and, when such a claim is raised, the trial court must determine whether the defendant has shown by a preponderance of the evidence that the immunity attaches.

(internal citation omitted; emphasis added.)

[Terr]

@Kimmy_Gibbler

Quite incorrect.

See Dennis v. State, 17 So. 3d 305 (Fla. 2010), which held:

The Supreme Court of Florida endorsed the procedure laid out by the District Court of Appeal in Peterson v. State, 983 So. 2d 27 (Fla. Ct. App. 2008), which wrote:

(internal citation omitted; emphasis added.)

No, not incorrect. From the same cite: “We now hold that when immunity under this law is properly raised by a defendant, the trial court must decide the matter by confronting and weighing only factual disputes.”

The “preponderance of evidence” in Zimmerman’s case is basic - his story of what happened and his testimony as to his fear of death or great bodily harm. If the prosecution cannot counteract that with contradicting evidence (i.e. “factual dispute”) then the case should be dismissed.

[Kimmy_Gibbler]

@Terr

No, not incorrect. From the same cite: “We now hold that when immunity under this law is properly raised by a defendant, the trial court must decide the matter by confronting and weighing only factual disputes.”

How do you suppose that means the accused does not have the burden of raising the immunity?

The sentence you quoted just means that the prosecutor cannot defeat the dismissal of a criminal prosecution due to SYG immunity merely by pointing out the existence of factual disputes. Ordinarily, factual disputes are resolved via a trial, not a pre-trial hearing, and so, ordinarily dismissal is not an appropriate remedy merely because the accused can point to factual disputes. What SYG immunity does is it requires the resolution of these facts at pre-trial, such that if the POTE shows that the immunity applies, the need for a trial is obviated.

As is made clear by the succeeding sentence: “We now hold that when immunity under this law is properly raised by a defendant, the trial court must decide the matter by confronting and weighing only factual disputes. The court may not deny a motion simply because factual disputes exist.”

This does not relieve the accused from his obligation to raise the immunity if he thinks it applies. The prosecution does not have to disprove the immunity if it is not raised by the accused first.

But if you think it stands for something else, please do elaborate on your theory.

[Jas09]

@Terr

There is nothing in the law that requires the defendant to bring the evidence of his innocence.

@Terr

The “preponderance of evidence” in Zimmerman’s case is basic - his story of what happened and his testimony as to his fear of death or great bodily harm. If the prosecution cannot counteract that with contradicting evidence (i.e. “factual dispute”) then the case should be dismissed.

So does he have to give testimony (“evidence of his innocence”) or not? If Zimmerman shows up at the hearing and his defense says nothing and the prosecution says nothing do you really think that the charges will be dismissed due to immunity? Perhaps you think that “testimony” is not “evidence”?

Obviously he has to provide evidence that he was acting in accordance with the immunity provisions of the SYG law. Exactly as Fear Itself said.

[Nars_Glinley]

@Dr.Colossus

it sounded as if he was saying killing someone for bloodying your nose is a proportional response. maybe he didn’t mean it as a person opinion but his interpretation of precedents. at any rate, he’s gotten absolutely everything wrong so far, so i’m not sure why he’s still playing jr lawyer.

(bolding mine) If I’m not mistaken, it would probably be more accurate to describe Bricker as a senior lawyer.

[Happy_Fun_Ball]

@Bricker

Which part of the law – and your reading – makes you say that someone has the right to respond with force against “aggressive harassment?” Which part says that someone may punch if confronted?

Specifically?

I agree he had no duty to retreat. Where do you get that he had a license to respond to being asked a question – even aggressively - with a punch?

If I understand the bill correctly, it says that you can meet force with force and have no duty to retreat. Nobody knows what happened that night (except Zimmerman), but if Zimmerman physically confronted Trayvon after stalking him and pursuing him through the neighborhood, it is entirely reasonable under the law for Trayvon to defend himself with physical force. I don’t know about you, but when I was 17 years old I would have been scared to death if there was some guy following around a neighborhood at night.

For the record, the writer of the law (Florida state representative Dennis Baxley) seems to agree with me in principle (from NPR’s Talk of the Nation):

CONAN: And again, we don’t know all the details of the confrontation. What makes you think that Stand Your Ground does not apply to George Zimmerman’s defense?

BAXLEY: Well, simply because if you carefully read the statute, which most of the critics have not, and read the legislative analysis, there’s nothing in this statute that authorizes you to pursue or confront other people. If anything, this law would have protected the victim in this case; it could have.

Emphasis added by me.

[Bricker]

@Terr

No, not incorrect. From the same cite: “We now hold that when immunity under this law is properly raised by a defendant, the trial court must decide the matter by confronting and weighing only factual disputes.”

@Kimmy_Gibbler

How do you suppose that means the accused does not have the burden of raising the immunity?

I can’t tell exactly where you two are disagreeing.

But I think Kimmy has it right, if I understand what’s being said: the accused must, by motion to dismiss, raise the issue of lack of probable cause.

Normally, such a motion won’t be entertained at a trial when it rests on factual disputes. A motion to dismiss for lack of probable cause is cured by the trial court’s guilty verdict – if there was evidence beyond a reasonable doubt, then there was certainly probable cause. And if the trial court’s verdict is not guilty, the motion to dismiss is mooted.

But under this law, the trial court is obligated to act as a threshold finder of fact. So a motion to dismiss for lack of probable cause now means that the trial judge must sit as a finder of fact, and review the totality of circumstances to determine if the facts support probable cause.

That is what Dennis stands for.

[Dr.Colossus]

@Nars_Glinley

(bolding mine) If I’m not mistaken, it would probably be more accurate to describe Bricker as a senior lawyer.

call him “judge judy and executioner” for all i care. all i know is he’s 1. really, really adept and citing/researching case law and 2. really, really inept at anticipation the practical implication of how they will be enforced.

[Bricker]

@L. G. Butts

, but if Zimmerman physically confronted Trayvon after stalking him and pursuing him through the neighborhood,…

What, specifically, does “physically confronted” mean?

[Happy_Fun_Ball]

@Bricker

A punch that bloodies the nose is “serious bodily harm.” I cited the caselaw for that back in the IMHO thread - do you want it again?

I am sorry, but the law does not apply to Zimmerman in any form. From what I read in the news, his lawyer feels the same way. Zimmerman was the agressor here, not an innocent citizen empowered under the law to “stand his ground”. Again from the NPR interview:

BAXLEY: So - and in fact, the gentleman - Mr. Zimmerman’s attorney, who when he first appeared on CNN the other night, he actually said he was not going to use this statute. The governor, Jeb Bush, has said it does not apply.

CONAN: That’s the previous governor.

BAXLEY: Yes, the former governor who signed it. The Senate sponsor, Senator Peaden, former senator, he’s in the panhandle. He said it doesn’t apply. From my review, I certainly - it certainly wasn’t the intent of any of us to protect anyone who was pursuing and confronting other people. It was when an individual law-abiding citizen was the subject and the victim of a violent attack. And an investigation always has to be done to determine that. I think in this case the important thing is we have a template moving forward.

[Dr.Colossus]

@Bricker

I can’t tell exactly where you two are disagreeing.

But I think Kimmy has it right, if I understand what’s being said: the accused must, by motion to dismiss, raise the issue of lack of probable cause.

Normally, such a motion won’t be entertained at a trial when it rests on factual disputes. A motion to dismiss for lack of probable cause is cured by the trial court’s guilty verdict – if there was evidence beyond a reasonable doubt, then there was certainly probable cause. And if the trial court’s verdict is not guilty, the motion to dismiss is mooted.

But under this law, the trial court is obligated to act as a threshold finder of fact. So a motion to dismiss for lack of probable cause now means that the trial judge must sit as a finder of fact, and review the totality of circumstances to determine if the facts support probable cause.

That is what Dennis stands for.

from what i understand, under STY you can request a hearing on the evidence that *could *result in the charges being dropped if the evidence is not strong enough against the defendant.

in *this *case, zimmerman’s lawyers have made it clear he will not be doing that.

in fact, it’s already happened as of now–he’s entered his plea.

why are people still arguing about it…?

[Bricker]

@Dr.Colossus

call him “judge judy and executioner” for all i care. all i know is he’s 1. really, really adept and citing/researching case law and 2. really, really inept at anticipation the practical implication of how they will be enforced.

I don’t think you really read what I’ve posted.

For example, you seem to think I said that Zimmerman could not be arrested or detained.

Since I never said that – without qualifiers-- I suspect the problem is your lack of comprehension.

[Bricker]

@Dr.Colossus

from what i understand, under STY you can request a hearing on the evidence that *could *result in the charges being dropped if the evidence is not strong enough against the defendant.

in *this *case, zimmerman’s lawyers have made it clear he will not be doing that.

in fact, it’s already happened as of now–he’s entered his plea.

why are people still arguing about it…?

What does his plea have to do with anything?

And I haven’t read anything that indicates Zimmerman’s lawyers won’t be asking for a pre-trial hearing on probable cause grounds. I’d love to read a cite supporting that claim.