Click the Pic
That reminds me!
Free Republic could use a fill-up too
Donate monthly to help abolish FReepathons
Sponsors will bark up $10 for each new monthly sign-up
Posted on 04/21/2012 3:29:09 PM PDT by 2ndDivisionVet
To condense your point even further; it would appear that George Zimmerman carries himself with respect for himself and others and Trayvon Martin appears to have had contempt for himself and others. I won’t recite the examples that lead me to that conclusion because we’ve all read about them by now.
If Z did that, he'd be out in 2 months. Unfortunately, it would be feet first.
It would be like Nixon going to China. But of course with B-ho being about at the level of the dirt on RMN’s shoe leather, it won’t happen.
:)
it is immunity from arrest (to prevent agenda prosecutors who have personal issues with citizen self defense. Like the present prosecutor)
the law also provides specific immunity from civil suit. This was done as tort reform. It cut the legs out from under the slap suits from brady campaigners and the relatives of criminals victimizing a person for the second time.
It is a good law. It is hated by the criminal class and the tril lawyers.
there is no civil suit allowed as a matter of law.
unless the race baiters can tamper with the jury there can be no dollar pay out.
we are also forgetting this may never reach a jury.
(btw foxnf had a witness demonstrating the position of zimmerman and how he was being beaten. (back on grass, head on corner of concrete) AND he demonstrated the shot was an upward shot that went up front and out the back.
combine that with the investigator’s smart alec testimony then the prosecution becomes more and more suspect)
has anyone ever been in this judge’s courtroom and observed his demenor?
some judges punt everything over to the jury so they don’t have to make hard choices.
The fact she withheld evidence is a serious problem for her. She has an affirmative duty to disclose.
As the judge observed, it is a very thin file. Most of the paperwork is from media outlets.
If it's a matter of law, the judge is going to rule and can't punt. If it's a matter of fact, the judge should be 'punting' to the jury except for situations where, as a legal certainty, it's appropriate to rule. If there's a question of fact that must be determined to reach a decision and that fact isn't known to a legal certainty, then the jury of the defendant's peers should be determining the fact.
I'm frequently not happy with 'facts' as determining by a jury but I'd be less happy with a system where a judge (a federal judge with tenure for life, or a judge elected based on how the public perceives he or she rules) decides the facts based on his or her prejudices. And a large percentage of judges do have prejudices. That's how judges develop reputations after time on the bench. Pro-corporation. Anti-drug company. Don't believe the testimony of law enforcement officers/do believe the testimony of law enforcement officers. Harder on rapists; treat rapists the same as other defendants; believe women of flexible character had it coming, etc.
We have juries for a reason - and there are times when a defendant waives his or her right to a jury for a reason. I've served on two juries and been the chairman both times - both rape of a minor by a family member. I was stunned at how serious the jurors took it once the door to the jury room closed. People who had been kids and prima donnas in the jury box and during the trial poured over facts and testimony, and conflicting evidence. They were willing to deliberate more than a day and not rush things so everyone could talk and a new opinion could filter through the group. Almost swore I heard the Battle Hymn of the Republic playing in the background.
Dancing Itos to be replaced by the
“Ballet of the Angela Coreys?”
(Disney Dancing hippos to be replaced by a blob?)
ah but stand your ground was passed to prevent juries from making an emotional choice to in essence prevent a criminal prosecution but still throw a defendant to the civil trial attorney sharks.
If a finding on stand your ground is always going to require a fact finding then no judge will ever have to make a hard choice and it will always be punted to the jury when it should have been decided as a matter of law.
I am now wondering if this would be a matter that would allow an interlocutory appeal. (appeal before the final conclusion of the case)
Running out the door and would have to research it later - but my understanding is that the issue of whether Florida Statutes 776.012 or 776.041 (the SYG and SYG if aggressor provisions) are applicable are subject to interlocutory appeals.
And you're clearly right. On the determination of whether those provisions of Chapter 776, the legislature has pulled the decision from a jury and made it a judicial decision.
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.