Posted on 05/01/2012 5:49:20 AM PDT by marktwain
Disagree. Do you seriously want cops on the site to make a snap judgment whether it was justified or not?
I don't. In such a serious case, a hearing is entirely appropriate, possibly at minimum in the form of an inquest.
YMMV.
Exactly.
The only “critics of the law” are the ambulance chasers that no longer get a big payday every time someone uses deadly force to defend themselves.
Of course SYG gets used for every case. This is like lawyers bitching every mugging being called an “assault.”
Keeping the parasites from making money off crime victims is what the law was written for.
The cops did not make a judgment, the copes are PROHIBITED from making any self defense use arrest. The Prosecutor has to look the case over and see if it was a self defense case.
Prosecutors are held (alegedly) a high ethical standard in filing cases. It is not just let the judge sort it out. (”We who labor here seek only the truth”)
If there is no prohibition then you end up with a blanket arrest policy which leads to the fiascos of the domestic abuse courts where SOMEBODY has to be arrested as a matter of police policy.
There is no judgment for the police to make. The simple answer under the law is “no arrest”. The end.
Yes. Do you seriously believe a lawyer with a vested interest, far removed from the scene, is going to make a better determination?
The cops did not make a judgment, the copes are PROHIBITED from making any self defense use arrest. The Prosecutor has to look the case over and see if it was a self defense case.
Prosecutors are held (alegedly) a high ethical standard in filing cases. It is not just let the judge sort it out. (”We who labor here seek only the truth”)
If there is no prohibition then you end up with a blanket arrest policy which leads to the fiascos of the domestic abuse courts where SOMEBODY has to be arrested as a matter of police policy.
There is no judgment for the police to make. The simple answer under the law is “no arrest”. The end.
My understanding is this is not so if they have reason to believe the "self defense" is fishy.
Debunking the stand your ground myth
The assertion that Florida law allows shooting whenever someone believes it to be necessary is a flat-out lie. The actual law of Florida is that “a person is justified in the use of deadly force” if “(1) He or she reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the imminent commission of a forcible felony” (Florida Statutes, Section 776.012).
The second part of the law provides special provisions for self-defense against violent home invaders or carjackers. Neither of those is relevant to the Zimmerman case.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2867480/posts
Prosecutors hate "Stand your ground" laws. Before, in a legitimate self-defense shooting, they could tell the shooter "plead to involuntary manslaughter, you will get probation, everybody is happy", and the prosecutor gets an easy conviction for his statistics. Now, there is much more incentive for an innocent defender to see about getting the case tossed immediately in a "stand your ground" hearing.
There's a lot of prosecutorial abuse -- they let career criminals plead and get off, and ruin the lives of middle-class people who have to defend themselves.
the more you know about the inside workings of prosecutors, the less respect for the general group.
The majority gives a bad name to the few good prosecutors.
Dedbone, try You Tube, Massad Ayoob on stand your groung gun laws. I’d link it if I knew how if I can’t cut and paste I’m SOL.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.