Skip to comments.George Zimmerman: Self-defense hearing could dismiss death charge
Posted on 04/12/2012 5:17:42 AM PDT by spacejunkie2001
George Zimmerman can ask to have the second-degree-murder charge against him dropped without having to stand trial in the death of Trayvon Martin.
Two years ago, the Florida Supreme Court ruled that anyone claiming "stand your ground" immunity in a death, battery or assault case can request a hearing on the evidence.
The hearing allows the prosecution and defense to argue all the elements of self-defense in the case evidence. To get charges dismissed, the accused must convince the judge that a reasonable person would believe that using deadly force or the threat of deadly force was the only way to protect his or her life, court records show.
The state's "stand your ground" law passed in 2005 says:
"A person who is not engaged in an unlawful activity and who is attacked in any other place where he or she has a right to be has no duty to retreat and has the right to stand his or her ground and meet force with force, including deadly force if he or she reasonably believes it is necessary to do so to prevent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the commission of a forcible felony."
In its Dec. 16, 2010, ruling, the state Supreme Court stated that defendants claiming self-defense are entitled to evidentiary hearings to argue that the evidence in their cases proves they had the right to protect themselves.
The most recent of these hearings in Orlando failed.
(Excerpt) Read more at articles.orlandosentinel.com ...
America is going to have to face up to the black racist mobs sooner or later. We can’t continue to let them hold the nation hostage. It is obvious that too many American blacks are not ready - are too racist - to be able to handle having a Black man in the White House.
From Holder’s actions in refusing to prosecute the Nation of Islam thugs obstructing voting in Philadelphia to his silence as the Nation of Islam’s political arm, the panthers, threatened to murder Zimmerman and put a price on his white head...Black demon-rats can not be trusted with power over other races of people.
“George...you now know why the 911 operator suggested that you not follow Trayvon....”
George Zimmerman NEVER talked to 911; get your facts straight!
(I believe you’ll find several reference in the Bible of God fearing people petitioning God to strike down an enemy)
If the evidence is as is presently out there, the Zimmerman jury might have to do so in order to convict.
Let's get our terminology straight, this would be a railroad, or lynching.
Such an action would be the nullification of justice, the society, and the moral authority of government. It would be the affirmation of mob rule, absolute barbarism and human sacrifice.
Conviction of an obviously innocent man because you dislike his politics or skin color is just as much jury nullification as is acquittal of a guilty one because you approve of his politics.
No, this is a conflation that ASSUMES that law given by the mob is good or just. It is not, as my tagline has asserted for a while, now.
Yesterday’s small fonts included a rocket launch by NK. A large earthquake complete with tsunami and.....who knows what else was cut due to “time limitations”
Yeah, you can almost hear them plotting to get their son killed so they could get paid...poor Trayvon, having to take one for the family.
Yep, no judge nor jury member will want a bouty on their heads either. Easier to give up Zimmerman than to acquit or end up with a hung jury.
That's how I've seen it defined, more or less. If you have another I'd be very interested to hear it.
OK, it seems jury nullification usually refers to acquittal for a defendant charged with a crime the jury believes should not be a crime.
It’s an extension of the term, but I fail to see how this differs in principle from a jury convicting a person when they think the law should have made what he did criminal.
The Juror has several duties and absolute authority over all facets of government by nullification.
I will expand later, if I have time today, gotta go, now.
I understand your sentiments, however the cops were not charged with murdering Rodney King simply for the fact he was and is still above ground.
Doesn’t matter what happens, there will be riots.
Even if he is tried and convicted for murder, the celebrations will turn into riots as Holder’s people seek to get even with Whitey.
As in ‘No justice no peace...’? The mobs will roam about... One time this chant was so garbled during a demonstration it sounded like, “No juices, no pi**”, as though they were having a tough times giving a sample for a drug test without ‘help’...
I’m from Jacksonville. Its reeeel conservative. Hence only a handful of demonstrators outside the courthouse. A trial there would bring a fast acquital.
Not likely; last I heard a Spanish company with ties to George Soros has been retained to count the votes.
Before the elections, maybe? So the electorate can see clearly what a vote for Obama enables?
"We don't need you to do that." (follow him)
"What's your address?"
"I don't want to say it; I don't know where that guy is..."
Contact had been broken. It was reestablished when Martin approached Zimmerman from behind.
Its an extension of the term, but I fail to see how this differs in principle from a jury convicting a person when they think the law should have made what he did criminal.
Reasonable question on it's surface, so let's look at nullification in each case.
In the first (a crime the jury believes should not be a crime), the jury believes that the government has perpetrated a tyranny by fiat, and the action is against the government (legislature, unjust law; executive, malicious prosecution, corrupt police investigation; judicial, biased judge) and the jury overrules any or all government entities.
In the second (a jury convicting a person when they think the law should have made what he did criminal), how does the jury get the defendant into court in the first place when a prosecutor will not charge 'em because the state holds they have not violated the law?
Juries, even Grand Juries cannot charge anyone without a prosecutor asking for a charge, so a jury cannot "nullify" a failure to prosecute.
Likewise if a prosecutor charges a serial murdering defendant with over parking because he cannot prove serial murder, the jury cannot return a verdict such as: "On the charge of over parking, we the jury find the defendant guilty of murder in the first degree."
The jury only has the power to nullify the government, it may not "nullify" a law (ex post facto or not) or a charge into existence.
That is the job of the mob.