'Stand Your Ground' hearing could potentially clear Zimmerman in Trayvon Martin shooting

Fox News / The Associated Press ^ | August 9, 2012

[FormerLib]

What if the riots prevent many Americans from voting? It’s a question that has to be asked given the ‘Justice’ Dept.’s capitulation to the New Black Panther Party’s voter intimidation.

[Cboldt]

-- O'Mara hasn't filed an appeal for Lester's denial of a motion to recuse himself. I wonder why ? --

Me too. I see no reason for him to accept the order. I think there is plenty of time to petition for a writ of prohibition, since the matters before the court are "in motion" with no action to take place before October. There is probably a 30 day or so time deadline for filing the "appeal" to the adverse order.

I don't think Lester will go out of his way to show impartiality. /s Meaning I think he;ll be even less likely to accept Zimmerman's statements as truthful now, than he would have been if the Motion for Recusal had not been filed. I think Lester is the type to hold a grudge.

[MileHi]

Castle doctrine allows you to confront the perps in defense of your property.

You need to be careful. In Colorado we have the "Make My Day" law, similar to Castle Doctrine. It will shield you if you defend yourself in your home and fear for your life or personal harm. If you attempt to protect your property outside you house you can and will be prosecuted.

http://www.thedenverchannel.com/news/24231446/detail.html

[JudgemAll]

The vast right wing conspiracy of right wing legislation... not like the left has PC as a way to impose moral high grounds and sinister “higher powers” of democratic psychological blackmail to bow to.

[Cboldt]

-- I'm in Ohio, and we have "castle doctrine" which I thought was the same thing. --

Ohio has the most prosecution friendly legal standard against self defense, too. In every other state, the prosecution must prove (at trial), beyond a reasonable doubt, that the action was not self defense. In Ohio, the prosecution only has to show it was less likely self defense - preponderance of the evidence, running in the prosecution's favor.

[Logical me]

Isn't it amazing what some blacks will play for money. Trayvon was a punk and totally responsible for his own death.

[BobinIL]

My sentiments exactly

they must have figured they could not get this thing to trial before the election so if they can get it thrown out sometime in October let the cities burn and gin up the black voters.

[ansel12]

I would prefer they call it self-defense, the left is turning SYG into a murder permit and making it sound like a strange and radical law suddenly created out of thin air.

[Winstons Julia]

Thank you.

[Uncle Chip]

<>Did you see that the parents applied to the crime victim’ fund in FL?<>

Yep — it was applied for on behalf of the mother Sybrina who wasn’t even taking care of him, and whose salary at her housing agency job is about $68,000/yr, on top of her take from the Trayvon Martin Trust set up to go right into the Martin family pockets.

This is the form that would have to have been filled out for her to get the money from the fund. Note section 9:

http://myfloridalegal.com/webfiles.nsf/WF/KGRG-8E4KRV/$file/VictimsCompApp-Eng.pdf

Supposedly this application had been approved at the AG office way back in March. How is that possible without the person filling out this form not to have committed perjury???

[Cboldt]

My pleasure. I got the standard for reversal incorrect though. The appellate court will reverse the trial judge denial of immunity, if it (the appellate court) finds the evidence of self defense to be clear and convincing. This is less than "beyond a reasonable doubt," but more than "more likely than not."

If the state appeals a grant of immunity, the standard of review is reversed, and is what I said in my previous post to you - the appellate court must find clear and convincing evidence that the use of force was not justified, in order to push the case through to a trial.

[Beagle8U]

“The part of the Stand Your Ground law that says there is no duty to retreat from anyplace you lawfully are does not apply. So, the “stand your ground” part of the Stand Your Ground law is inapplicable.”

Please explain why it doesn't apply?

I think it does and so does his Lawyer.

[Kenton]

I am not a lawyer (Disclaimer). But you might be surprised to find out what all is in your Castle Doctrine. There are many states that have adopted forms of this law as well. This gives citizens to defend their property with lethal force.

Well, maybe not exactly. Ohio isn't Texas, we still can't use deadly force to stop a property crime.

I believe what we can do is (for example) to intervene if somebody's trying to steal your car in your driveway, and can only resort to deadly force if the perp subsequently attacks (with the equivalent of a deadly force provocation) you when you are on your property. So if the guy sees the light, and desists, no deadly force, obviously.

Thanks for the information, I can see that this is something I need to understand a bit better,

[Tenacious 1]

I worded my previous post incorrectly (or at least misleading). You are both correct.

From my earlier post the Castle Doctrine does not allow you to “defend your property with deadly force” as I stated.

What I meant and did explain correctly is that you can intervene to stop a crime on your property per the castle doctrine. You can defend your property. If your intervention causes the perp to escalate the situation in which you are in danger of great bodily harm or death, you can defend yourself with lethal force if necessary.

The distinction here is that you may legally approach the perps that are breaking into your truck in the driveway while armed with the intent of stopping the theft. If they pull a gun or attack you instead of fleeing, you may defend yourself.

[Kenton]

The distinction here is that you may legally approach the perps that are breaking into your truck in the driveway while armed with the intent of stopping the theft. If they pull a gun or attack you instead of fleeing, you may defend yourself.

Yeah, I think that clarifies it pretty well, I agree.

[MileHi]

Understood

[karnage]

Sorry, I thought you said Nixon ‘68. My mistake.

[Cboldt]

The reason Zimmerman has no duty to retreat under his circumstance is that he cannot retreat. He is being restrained despite efforts to free himself. "Retreat" is not available to him, at that point. Even if there was a duty to retreat (there isn't), he would not have to overcome a contention that he had an opportunity to retreat and did not take it.

When O'Mara says "Stand your Ground" applies, he means that Zimmerman is entitled to assert the immunity statute that is bundled in the set of statutes that, as a group, is referred to as "Stand your Ground."

[Joe Boucher]

What, they lost revenue on the kids loot from B & E’s and marijuana sales??

[zencycler]

The reason Zimmerman has no duty to retreat under his circumstance is that he cannot retreat. He is being restrained despite efforts to free himself. "Retreat" is not available to him, at that point. Even if there was a duty to retreat (there isn't), he would not have to overcome a contention that he had an opportunity to retreat and did not take it.

I think this can be easily overcome. Just before he was restrained, Zim reported that Trayvon approached him and said something like "You got a problem". Zim chose to respond instead of running away. Then, when Trayvon lunged at him and said "well you do now", again, Zim tried (unsuccessfully) an unarmed defense of this assault rather than running.