—Your ignorance, so clearly displayed is embarrassing.—
Yeah. I don’t live in Florida, but I’ve read the law, read the law’s author’s interpretation of the law and why It does not apply here, and read plenty of other articles about the practical application and its purpose as well as existing “self defense” legal protection.
Regarding the SYG immunity hearing, I’m very ignorant, I admit. But I’m not embarrassed. It’s not my job to know. What I am trying to deal with is the law as written and the meaning of English words and how they apply to this case.
Your superiority complex could be dialed down a bit though. Adults don’t talk that way. At least, not at first utterance. Get to know me. See if I may not be who you perceive me to be after reading only a few of my posts. IOW, be slow to anger. ;-)
Stand Your Ground is just one provision of the FL self-defense law. Since GZ was pinned to the ground, that part of the law obviously doesn't apply to him.
There are two other parts of that law that are critical to GZ.
1)FL’s self defense law gives GZ the option of asking for an immunity hearing before a judge in which he only needs to prevail by a preponderance of the evidence (not proof beyond a reasonable doubt). If GZ wins at the hearing, he doesn't have to go through a full blown trial.
2)If GZ wins the immunity hearing it makes him (and his condo assoc., etc.) immune from civil suits brought by TM’s family. If he is found not guilty after a trial, Trayvon’s family could still go after him in a civil suit.
If he loses the immunity hearing, he can still claim self-defense at a trial.
The downside to asking for an immunity hearing is that each side will have insight into the trial strategy of the other and witness statements will be set in stone.
Do I think Judge Lester has the guts to free George in an immunity hearing? I would have said possibly yes, but after his hissy fit at the second bond hearing, I have changed my mind. I believe that he violated George's due process rights by allowing the prosecution to file a motion to revoke bail at a hearing that was scheduled for media access to the discovery and not allowing MOM to have time to prepare for the motion or to get GZ to the hearing. IM(never to be)HO, it was unconscionable for the judge to force MOM to defend against the motion on the fly.
Do I think that people with an agenda are using the SYG meme to attack citizens’ rights to self-defense? Absolutely yes!
Since you politely responded I’ll elaborate but in bullet point fashion as time is short.
Your post: “SYG does not apply in this case. Nobody who understands that law believes it does.”
No ifs, and or buts. Sorry but you invited a hit with that unsupported and imperious two line pronouncement.
SYG is actually an extension of pre-1995 self-defense law designed to assist a person forced to defend themselves against imminent death or serious bodily harm.
Re applicability: The law simply states that if you are lawfully in a place and face death or serious harm you may meet force with force which has always been true under common law but it changed the treatment of the defense.
The SYG law creates an IMMUNITY from arrest, prosecution or civil liability IF you establish that your actions were valid self-defense.
The immunity from arrest can be overcome by police determining probable cause that your right to self defense
was inapplicable because of other unlawful activity.
The SYG hearing for dismissal of charges was actually a creation of the courts simply trying to meet the immunity from prosecution provision of the law. If I’m immune from arrest or prosecution why are you taking me to trial?
Rarely is legislation the product of a single author and even the author often cannot foresee the application of his law in practice.
Perhaps of interest, the original bill provided that a court finding of valid self defense would allow for the defendant to recover attorney’s fees and costs from the charging authority (cops/state attorney) but that part got edited out.
Where you say the bill author thought the SYG inapplicable its unclear to what extent he was relying on the media distortions or even to what extent the media distorted/edited/misreported his statements. Not out of the realm of possibilities. ;-)
Judges, not all but many, regularly make their decisions based on the law, the arguments, the evidence and would be offended to be accused of caving to public opinion.
In the GZ case, with the incredible media and interest group pressure, the intent and correct application of the law may in fact become a victim.
I don’t know what happened in this case. I’ve read quite a bit and have an idea that GZ should be found to have acted in self defense.
Lastly, rarely mentioned, is that in an SYG hearing the judge is both the trier of fact and law.
Prior to SYG, if any question of fact was present (which would invariably be the case) the motion to dismiss would be denied and it was off to trial for the defendant.
Hope this helps. ;-)