I found an interesting article on the SYG law where they review a 12 cases.
http://www.tampabay.com/news/publicsafety/stand-your-ground-law-protects-those-who-go-far-beyond-that-point/1222930
http://tampabay.com/stand-your-ground-law/main
One quote caught my eye:
This case strikes me as similar to the Zimmerman case:
The reason, I was struck by this case is that all the actions by both parties was legal right up to the point that Landes struck Podany.
Apparently, Zimmerman is the only remaining person to have not seen the “Don’t talk to the police” video.
What about the statements that his former attorneys are making? Saying that he may be suffering from post-traumatic stress, etc. Shouldn’t opinions that attorneys form about a client/former client be covered by privilege?
I found it weird that the lawyers announced Zimmerman was no longer in the state. Seems like they went out of their way to make him look like a flight risk. That they also felt the need to tell us he reached out to the prosecutor and Hannity is also kind of hilarious and seems to be sly way of informing the public that they think he’s an idiotic attention whore.
because zimmerman is a informant an never will be arrested.
Yes, if they learned about the post-traumatic stress in the context of attorney-client communication, and did not discuss with him the value in announcing it, then it seems to me it violates the privilege. They might argue that it’s a defense strategy, though, and their client at least implicitly authorized them to release such information if, in their judgement, it helped his cause. It would depend on what specific instructions and strategy Zimmerman agreed to.
In my opinion, their statements, taken as a whole, come pretty close to legal malpractice for a couple of reasons, but that’s an opinion that is not at all informed on the substance of their conversations with Zimmerman, so it’s not worth much.
Fear Itself, what do you think about Judge Foster’s comments?
Even if it isn’t malpractice for violating attorney client privilege, they have a general duty to act in the best interest of their client. Holding a press conference to basically say your client is an idiot and you aren’t going to represent him anymore violates that duty.
because, zimmerman is a police informent an never will be arrested.
I not sure why you think that is important. You basically have probable cause or not probable cause. If the answer is not probable cause then you don’t arrest them.
A invalid point I’m afraid. Illegal possession of a firearm is clearly a separate act and can be charged even if it wasn’t used in the crime. Now if you had pointed out that Lippincott couldn’t be charged with manslaughter and discharging a firearm in public from a vehicle within 1,000 feet of any person as separate indictments you would be correct as far as I know.
I’m not clear about what facts you are postulating. There was only one one round fired and Zimmerman said he fired it. The only point of contention was it illegal when he pulled the trigger.
You really need to be concrete about what scenario you are creating.
No.
There is a difference between the overall finding of probable cause to believe a crime was committed, and the specific finding of probable cause to believe the force used was unlawful.
Uh huh.
An invalid point?
Well, let’s imagine that you charge illegal possession of a firearm, as you imagine, and the accused is acquitted.
Now you come back and charge the manslaughter.
At trial, the accused objects to the introduction of any evidence concerning his possession of the firearm, because the previous trial verdict found that he did not possess an illegal firearm, and you are now collaterally estopped from asserting that claim in this trial.
What’s your response?
I read an article on this topic. Zimmerman’s actions are enough to cause a criminal defense attorney to wake up in a cold sweat. Zimmerman is apparently a naif.
http://www.wagist.com/2012/dan-linehan/why-nothing-sticks-to-george-zimmerman
Since the driver was speeding through a neighborhood where children are present, I don’t think it is a good comparison to the Trayvon Martin case. Podany had a legitimate reason to confront the driver, who was a clear and present danger to the community. Podany was subsequently attacked by a passenger. Self defense applies.
As a reminder, here was the quote:
I don’t see anything in the judge’s reported comments that talk about “legitimate reason” or “clear and present danger.” What he said was: Podany was in a place he had a legal right to be and he was carrying a weapon he had a legal right to carry.
Then I disagree with his grounds, but agree with his conclusion.
However, you just gotta love a guy who thinks to grab a gun when he is going to go talk to a guy about maybe slowing down through his neighborhood. I’m not disagreeing with the judges ruling, but honestly if you are taking your gun with you it seems in your mind you already know it is not going to be a pleasant conversation.
I would like to revisit this:
The judge’s comments lay a very poor foundation for justifying Podany’s actions. A person carrying a legal weapon on a public street cannot simply turn on a stranger and blow them away, then claim it was not a crime because he had a legal right to be there, and he was carrying a weapon he had a legal right to carry. The circumstances of the incident always determine the justification for deadly force, and if the judge did not consider the reason Podany confronted the driver, then his ruling was wrongly decided.
Do you disagree?
It appears that liberal CCW laws combined with SYG can often result in the Big Pussy scenario. The ultimate “gotcha” game. Why not be an obnoxious prick and provoke confrontations that you otherwise probably wouldn’t, when you can blast your way clear if things don’t go your way? And don’t worry if you kill someone; a bunch of dickless politicians with Dirty Harry fantasies made a law just to save your stupid ass. Good luck with that, Florida.
You don’t need to repeat it has no legal force. I know that and haven’t said anything to contradict that. What I stated was that it speaks to things like motivation, and who may have initiated the conflict, and that his ignoring of those instructions doesn’t speak to a frightened and cornered self-defense claim. I’m sure his defense team, if he gets one, will say the same thing you’re saying. And I’m sure the prosecution will say that it doesn’t pass the reasonable sniff test
You don’t know that. You don’t know where he is, nobody does. That’s why he’s a flight risk and that’s why this case was bungled. He could be sitting in a cell awaiting trial right now, or the court could have confiscated his passport, or any number of things. But none of that happened because the Sanford PD assumed he was innocent merely by his words and did nothing to contain him
Not you, but a jury, sure. That is, if this ever gets to trial, if they ever find him, and if he hasn’t already fled the country
You are trying to confute two different things. First you say that my sole claim is that his actions didn’t “suggest” innocence. Then you claim that they are perfectly legal. Well Bricker, those are not mutually exclusive. I agree completely with the 2nd statement that what he did was legal. I have no doubt it was because the cops let him go despite knowing what he did (which is my object to the SYG law). But however legal it is, I still say it suggests a criminal mentality and infers willingness on GZ’s part to initiate the attack instead of merely responding to it
In this instance, my reason to bring up past history is to damn the police department, not Zimmerman. Had this been a more colorblind town, the police might have done more than simply let him go with a slap on the wrist. Or if it was biased the other way, the police would probably have done a little more investigating to verify GZ’s statements than simply to assume he’s right.
Yes, I do disagree.
The reason Podnay confronted the driver is not relevant, as long as he acts legally. Of course, to “…simply turn on a stranger and blow them away,” is not a legal act.
He is allowed to walk up to someone and ask, “Don’t you think you were going too fast?” (Or even “What are you doing in this neighborhood?”) Stepping up to someone and asking a question is not a violation of law. The question is always: who initiated illegal force first?
As long as Podnay was in a place he had a legal right to be and he was carrying a weapon he had a legal right to carry, and did not initiate illegal force first, he’s permitted to use deadly force to defend himself, even if he was a self-appointed traffic watchman for his neighborhood.
That’s the law. It’s not relevant who acted unwisely or who should have left well enough alone or whole should have waited for the cops. The question is: who started the use of illegal force?
Since the purpose of the trial was to determine if Podany was acting legally, I don’t see how this circular argument provides any justification for deadly force.
I disagree. The question is, shall deadly force be justified when the shooter provoked the confrontation without cause? I say no.