Joe Horn actually shot two people, and fired three shotgun blasts and a Police captain wearing plainclothes observed the whole incident and gave statements that he observed Joe Horn shooting them in the back–and Joe Horn is a free man.
Calling the murder victim a nobody is a gratuitous stab at a dead minor. Most of us would call this poor manners. I don’t care if you’re the CEO of a mega corporation or a homeless wino, if someone murders you, then the state owes it to you to conduct a thorough investigation. It appears to this observer that did not happen. When the victim, not the shooter, gets a drug test AND a background check, what does that tell you? Nobody says we should throw out the legal system over this. When the system seems to cough up a hairball, as it did here, it’s the public’s right and duty to raise an almighty stink about it.
The Grand Jury doesn’t even meet until April 10, so this is all speculation, right? Before you say that the SYG law is evil in this case, waiting until at least the GJ comes back with a bill might not be too premature, eh?
In the other case you cite, there is no doubt the two men were burglars, actively committing a break-in to his neighbor’s house. While of course we can still condemn the use of deadly force here, it is not a case” where an armed vigilante can kill an innocent person and easily get away with it” since clearly there were not “innocent”.
What do you think hearsay is?
The girl would be on the stand, testifying, “I hear Martin say that …”
The testimony would be offered to try to prove that what Martin said actually happened.
That is hearsay. It can’t get any hearsay-ier.
Yes, isn’t that what I said? this is another great example of why these “Stand Your Ground” rules are a terrible idea.
The mere fact that legal experts are saying that Mr. Zimmerman could get out of his car, follow a teenager against police advice, shoot him and kill him, and likely get off due to Stand your Ground laws, is enough to convince me, even if in this case there’s a conviction.
I didn’t mean it as an exact parallel to this case, I meant it as a clear example of why Stand Your Ground laws should be repealed, as I said above.
There’s also no evidence that SYG had anything to do with the Grand Jury’s decision in the Horn case.
Joe Horn is damn lucky to live in a state where a lot of people think the Wild West was the good old days.
OK then, I am willing to be enlightened, what was Mr. Horn’s defense? Why is shooting someone in the back not a crime in Texas?
Grand Jury proceedings are almost always secret, and in general, the defendant is not allowed to present a defense. So, he had no defense. The Prosecution presents their evidence, and the GJ decides if there is enough evidence to proceed with a prosecution, trial, etc. Thus, ipso facto, the State did not have enough evidence to proceed.
I have actually sat on a Grand Jury.
With that being said, I have heard of cases where hearsay evidence is admissible because the original speaker is dead and can no longer give direct evidence. Are you saying, Bricker, that her evidence would not be allowed in court?
Present sense impression?
Considering that Martin was killed shortly after this, could this be considered a dying declaration?
All right, if we’re going to split hairs (I swear it’s like pulling teeth to get a straight answer out of people in this thread), why would the evidence that Mr. Horn shot a fleeing person in the back not be sufficient to proceed with a prosecution or trial in Texas?
Have you ever sat on a Grand Jury? Do you understand how GJ proceedings work in the USA?
Here you go:
Note this line “The target of a grand jury investigation has no right to testify or put on a defense before the grand jury”. So Joe Horn or his attorney made no claim as to a SYG defense before the GJ.
So- I don’t know. No-one, except those 16 or so people that sat on that GJ, will ever know. The deliberations are secret. Speculation is pointless.
No.
I have a general idea.
OK then.
No, this I disagree with. I think it’s perfectly acceptable to speculate that the jurors refused to indict Mr. Horn because they thought his behaviour fit the definition of the law, and then try to figure out what law they thought would apply in this case. Isn’t that how Grand Jurys work? Or, since you’ve been on one, perhaps you can tell me. Are people on a Grand Jury expected or instructed to make a decision disregarding any laws?
Really? I’m totally open to being enlightened. What intent is it?
Here’s the Florida murder statute in its entirety (unfortunately your insistence on skirting the details means I have to whip out my fonts and styles…sigh…)
[ul]
[li]Do you agree that statutes exist for the purpose of defining what the laws are?[/li][li]Do you agree that this is Florida’s statute defining the crime of murder?[/li][li]Do you agree that Sections (1) - (4) each describe very specific circumstances that are considered differing “degrees” of murder? [/li][li]Do you agree that Section (2), which has been the section referred to since someone else first posted the statute and is the section I have consistently and clearly specified in my argument that no intent is needed, describes circumstances which completely lack anything having to do with intention of any kind, either to kill someone or to commit any criminal act at all, and in fact specifically note that no intention is necessary?[/li][li]If your answer is no, you do not agree that Section 2 means this (which thus far has been your position, obviously) can you explain what it is you see in these words defining the law that lead you to not agree?[/li][/ul]
Wait… following a person? You said there was no evidence that he was following Martin. So was he following Martin or not? And if he was following Martin, how is it that Martin attacked him unexpectedly?
Evidently he did…the guy is a tool for sure.
Hearsay is VERY complex and convoluted and so not what you see on TV. Seriously. Hearsay is unfuckingbelievably complex and you so don’t want to even try to wrap your head around it.
There are cases where that happens, yes, but they typically involve circumstances that are not present here.
For example, hearsay may be admitted into evidence if it is former testimony, given as a witness at a trial, hearing, or deposition, if the witness was subject to cross-examination at the time. Or it could be the dying declaration mentioned by iiandyiiii, but that only applies when the declarer is near death, knows he’s near death, and is saying who injured him. Finally, it could be a statement against Martin’s own interest.
It’s possible that sciurophobic’s idea would work: present sense impression. A statement made made by the declarant describing an event, made while the event is happening, would be admissible. It all depends on what, specifically, Martin said.
Stood, go read the wikipesia entry on “Intention (criminal law)” and pay special attention to “general intent.” As we have stated to you several times, you cantjust read some statutes and think you fully understand the law.
Zimmerman definitely referred to the kid as a “coon” at 2:21 Zimmerman heard calling Trayvon Martin "Coon" on 911 Call - YouTube
No, you’re not. I learned my lesson last time, Stoid. I, and several other lawyers on these boards, spent hours and hundreds of keystrokes explaining why your pro se petition had severe problems, and you responded with pages upon pages of utter garbage. I suspect that, to this day, you feel you were wronged by the corrupt judge and the stupid appeals court, who, if they had only the legal insight you possess, would have decided your case differently.
But what I learned from that experience is that the last thing you’re open to is being enlightened. You’re open to anything which confirms your existing train of thought, and absolutely closed to anything else.
So I’m going to decline your kind invitation to dance.