Ok.
But that’s not the legal standard, if your definition of “provoke a confrontation” includes purely legal actions.
In the shadow of SYG statutes, the law will have to change, or it will become all too easy for armed bullies to provoke confrontations with words, and if their target lays a hand on them, they claim immunity for putting a bullet in them. That is what will happen if the only standard is, who broke the law first. That is bad law.
Is innocence being strictly defined as legal vs. illegal? Has there been thorough discussion of the idea that many actions, isolated from all other actions, may be legal while adding to a person’s cumulative responsibility for a given result? And isn’t the legality of some actions decided by looking at the totality of a person’s actions, as well as a person’s intentions, potentially making a seemingly legal act (in this particular case, following Martin) an illegal act (such as determining that his “following” rose to the level of stalking)?
Simply to say/ask/note that just because a particular act is technically legal when considered in isolation from anything else, doesn’t mean it’s innocent.
Here is an idea. If you don’t have probable cause on the manslaughter, then don’t charge him until you do. Don’t assume the evidence fairy is going to show up and solve your problems. Charging somebody prematurely is stupid, since that starts the speedy trial clock.
I curious about what set of facts you are assuming where they couldn’t prove possession of a firearm in the first trial, but could prove it the 2nd time. Are you assuming the lawyer screwed up on the first trial but would have got it right the second time when they are trying a more complicated set of facts? If you think it is that important, then try the manslaughter first and then come back on possession.
If you don’t have probable cause for a crime, don’t prosecute it. Letting prosecutors throw stuff against the wall and hope something sticks is a bug and not a feature.
Breaking News: Prosecutor announces George Zimmerman will be charged in the homicide of Trayvon Martin.
I wonder extradition will be like from where-ever the hell this guy is.
sigh
Ok.
And at the second trial, the accused moves for a dismissal, pointing out that the Supreme Court said that the Double Jeopardy Clause bars a subsequent prosecution if, to establish an essential element of an offense charged in that prosecution, the government will prove conduct that constitutes an offense for which the defendant has already been prosecuted. Since the government has already proved the conduct at the manslaughter trial, they can’t prove it again at a new trial for possession.
Grady v. Corbin, 495 U.S. 508 (1990).
I read up on the Podany case in a little more detail.
[ul]
[li]The guy that was driving the truck was the one that testified that Landes was the aggressor.[/li][li]A medical examiner’s toxicology report determined that Landes’ blood alcohol level was 0.28. The toxicology report also revealed Valium, and hydrocodone in Landes’ system.[/li][li]Landes had a conviction of aggravated battery in 2006 and was sentenced to a year and a day in state prison. He also had arrests for theft, battery and marijuana possession.[/li][/ul]
On further reflection Landes doesn’t even sound a little bit like Trayvon Martin.
Well, there goes my prediction. If ABC and the Washington Post are to believed, Angela Corey will announce charges against Zimmerman shortly. ABC says it will be at a press conference at 6 PM this evening. ABC also say the prosecutor’s office does not know exactly where Zimmerman is.
It seems very strange to me that they would announce charges without having him in custody. It seems strange they would be announcing a future intention to file charges without having filed them yet. Is it possible they’ve already filed papers in a court that the press can’t yet get to?
Man, even the network television reporters seem to have reading issues. Corey sent out an email to the press and the reporter read portions of it, including that she planned to hold a press conference at 6 PM announcing “new information” about the case. 30 seconds later he was summarizing it by claiming she had confirmed that she was going to announce her decision whether or not to prosecute, which she absolutely did not do, at least from the text he read. And it’s not like he was summarizing something he read earlier – he opened it on camera, and had to switch devices because the screen on his Blackberry was too small to read it at all.
She’s probably going to announce a decision, but the reporter was completely unjustified in claiming that her email confirmed it.
The story about charges being filed is not based on the special prosecutor’s official statement, it was attributed an unamed “senior law enforcement source”.
Here, we agree completely. This is bad law.
Bricker: You still don’t seem to want to answer my question about why prosecutors want to be able charge people for crimes they can’'t prove. If you can’t prove it, don’t charge it. Anything else is gamemanship and has nothing to actual justice.
Well, suppose the prosecutor believes it, but isn’t sure she can prove it beyond a reasonable doubt.
How about if she can prove it by preponderance of the evidence, but not beyond a reasonable doubt?
I disagree. Whoever throws the first punch, makes the first overt threat, or otherwise begins the physical confrontation is the responsible party. I can confront you for speeding or acting suspicious. Hell, I can even call you ever bad name in the dictionary, and you have no right to put your hands on me. If you do, I have every right to defend myself, and it is legitimate self defense. There are no fighting words or anything like that which give you the right to physically assault me.
If you respond to a punch with a gun, both parties should be charged with assault. You have no right to kill someone you were trolling, even if they punch you in the nose. Immunity from prosecution is bad law.
Why? If I question how fast you are driving, and you punch me, you’ve assaulted me. I’ve done nothing illegal to you.
You have a right to defend yourself if you’re being physically attacked. And that even applies to the biggest jerk in the world.
I could get behind this if you were defending yourself with a taser or mace or even brass knuckles. Jumping straight to lethal force would, in a lot of cases, be overkill (heh).
You don’t have the right to disproportionate response to the threat. If I punch you, that does not automatically confer the right to kill me. Immunity from prosecution no matter what the circumstances is bad law.