Stand Your Ground - Is It Part Of The Trayvon Martin Case, And How?

Florida's Stand Your Ground law (776) has been singled out by the NY Times (1, 2, 3, 4, 5) and the left as a key obstacle to justice in the Trayvon Martin killing. Yet Jacob Sullum and others insist that, based on the available information, George Zimmerman was not in a situation where his duty to retreat was at issue; consequently, this is a normal self-defense scenario and Stand Your Ground should not be a whipping boy.

The resolution is here; I welcome feedback but this Florida attorney has put in one article bits and pieces I have seen floating around elsewhere.

And the answer is, both sides are right but Jacob Sullum is righter [Mr. Sullum makes similar points more modestly here]. Stand Your Ground was primarily about a presumption of reasonable force in a self-defense situation at home or in one's car.  It also eliminated the duty to retreat in other situations, but the duty to retreat does not apply here. So far, Mr. Sullum is carrying the day.

However!  Prior to the passage of Stand Your Ground these self-defense arguments would be raised at trial.  Stand Your Ground created the basis for a new pre-trial hearing which can terminate the case on self-defense grounds; if the defendant loses there, they can raise self-defense again at trial.

From the article:

The procedures for asserting prosecutorial immunity under the Stand Your Ground Law are outlined in Peterson v. State, 983 So. 2d 27, 29 (Fla. 1st DCA 2008), a Florida First District Court of Appeal decision.  The Petersen decision definitively established that Section 776.032 was created by the Florida Legislature to establish a true immunity and not merely an affirmative defense.  The Court stated that, when immunity under the law is properly raised by a defendant, the trial court (at a hearing) must decide the matter by confronting and weighing only factual disputes.  Petersen held that a defendant may raise the question of statutory immunity pre-trial and, when such claim is raised, the trial court must determine whether the defendant has shown by a preponderance of the evidence that immunity attaches.  The trial court may not deny a motion for immunity simply because factual disputes exist.

...

With regard to the Trayvon Martin case, the notion that Florida’s Stand Your Ground law prohibits the prosecution of George Zimmerman is fundamentally false.  Although, if prosecuted, George Zimmerman may attempt to later assert immunity, this does not prevent a prosecution from being initiated.  Prior to forming Hussein & Webber, P.L., Attorney Troy J. Webber served as an Assistant Public Defender in the Eighteenth Judicial Circuit of Florida, the circuit governing Sanford, Florida.  During that time, the State Attorney’s Office for the Eighteenth Judicial Circuit routinely prosecuted defendants in the face of “Stand Your Ground” Motions.  In those cases, the prosecutor would file charges, and defense counsel would file a “Stand Your Ground” Motion for Declaration of Immunity and Dismissal [Click Here for an Example]. The matter was then heard at an evidentiary hearing, where the defense had to show its entitlement to immunity by a preponderance of the evidence.  If successful, immunity was granted and the case dismissed.  If unsuccessful, the prosecution resumed and the case resolved by way of plea or trial.  

From the NY Times:

The case will almost certainly include a pretrial hearing to determine whether the state’s Stand Your Ground law, which grants broad protections to people who claim to have killed in self-defense, applies; if the judge finds that Mr. Zimmerman acted appropriately, the case will end there. If the judge decides that the protections of the law do not apply, the case will go forward.

At trial, however, the question of self-defense can be brought up again and possibly will, said Robert Weisberg, a criminal law expert at Stanford Law School.

Normally a prosecutor would anticipate this process, evaluate the likelihood of success, and decide whether to bring charges. We certainly hope that happened here, and that Ms. Corey has a much stronger case than the publicly available information suggests.

BONUS TIMESWATCH: The duty to retreat evidently extends to Times editors.  Two of their early fulminations against "Stand Your Ground" specifically mention a duty to retreat:

March 21:

They threaten public safety by eliminating the longstanding legal requirement that someone sensing a threat has a reasonable “duty to retreat” from perceived danger before resorting to deadly force.

March 29:

Reported differences between local and state investigators over whether to charge Mr. Zimmerman initially only underline the dangerous vagaries of Stand Your Ground laws passed at the demand of the gun lobby in a score of states. Their lethal flaw is the abolition of the traditional legal duty to retreat from a threat before resorting to deadly force.

The duty to retreat is not at issue if Zimmerman really was flat on his back getting pummelled.  However, Stand Your Ground did create the basis for his pre-trial hearing.

In their most recent editorial, an April 12 victoy lap, the Times editors do not mention "retreat" but provide new evidence that the left hand does not know what the far left hand is doing; in reciting the background they include this:

In this case, Mr. Zimmerman exited his car to follow the teenager despite a 911 dispatcher’s warning: “We don’t need you to do that.”

Hah!  Ms. Alvarez reported that correctly today - Mr. Zimmerman was already out of his car when he got those instructions and responded "OK" when advised to go back.  As to what he actually did, the trial may tell.

But as evidence that Times editors don't follow their own links or read their own newspaper, let's follow their link to the March 20 coverage by Ms. Alvarez:

In the 911 call, Mr. Zimmerman, using an expletive and speaking of Trayvon, said they “always get away.” The 911 dispatcher told him not to get out of the car and said the police were on their way. Mr. Zimmerman was already outside. A dispute began. Mr. Zimmerman told the police that Trayvon attacked him and that he fired in self-defense.

She was right then, she is right now, and the Times editors are just making stuff up. Or recycling "news" they didn't get from the Paper of Record.

If they don't take thier own reporting seriously, or follow their own links, why should we?

Comments

[Enlightened]

I really hope that Corey was not pandering to the Martin's/Sharptons/Holders et al by overcharging to mitigate the obvious violence that would have erupted had she not charged.

If she went up there and sucked their arses, knowing the case would probably be dismissed immediately - she has done a great disservice to both sides.

I say this because personally I thought her behaviour at the presser really weird - like she was overacting (as many here have already noted) - and for a white woman to do so in this highly charged case - OMG the repurcussions would be immense.

I know there are a couple of people posting here that trust her professionalism - I hope that is the case. The last thing we need is for the black community to have yet another reason to hate and distrust whites.

And I will throw this out there, and it is just my observation, being an older, white woman - GZ new mug shot - he looks mean to me. Something about it makes me nervous - honestly if I saw him walking down the street at night I would be suspicious of him. Just my personal opinion and it does not change my opinion that GZ is being railroaded.

Also-my husband an I live in a mixed race, middle class neighborhood. Everyone walks their dogs at night and so we recognize a lot of people as residents. A few nights back we were walking the dog and we saw a person in a hoodie (not raining), walking in a weird manner, and acting slightly strange. This person followed us on our walk, and as he got closer we could hear his music from an ipod or other device (that music must have been REALLY loud for us to hear it too). He was a black man, probably in his 20's. We stopped on the sidewalk while our dog did his #2 business - most people generally walk around 2 people and a dog doing it's business just because the sidewalk is narrow and most people don't like to get into a strangers space like that - not this guy he walked right up next to us and was really acting weird. So after I scooped, we crossed the street to let him do his thing. He then went to a house that everyone in our neighborhood knows is a drug dealer, so he might have been on drugs or something. Anyway - he didn't scare us but he did intimidate us by acting strange. My husband tried to be nice and said "hey what's up" but he did not acknowledge. If GZ did the same thing - I would have been just as uncomfortable.

[Steve]

Since there is obviouse evidence the two were fighting the burden of proof has to be on the prosecution that the shooting was unnecesary. Sure, someone is shot dead with a bullet from the gun you had in your hand - the shooter has the burden to explain why they shot. But once it is accepted by the prosecution that the two were on the ground, wrestling and fighting, the burden of proof has to shift to the prosecution.

[Rob Crawford]

Send better witnesses.

Yeah, that account has way too many vivid embellishments.

[cboldt]

-- I don't do 'just' --

That's clear enough.

Change the facts ever so slightly. White skinhead gang roaming a neighborhood (unarmed) looking for trouble. One of them spots an elderly fellow, slightly built. Decks him, sits on him and bashes his head. Elderly gentleman pulls out a gun and kills the (single) attacker.

If you stick to your principles, you advocate charging the elderly man and putting him on trial. Because that's how reality rolls.

[Steve]

"... As to the argument that we don't know all the facts, well, yeah. But one fact we do know is that the local cops and DA never charged in three weeks. ..."

we also know someone in the Sanford PD wanted to file charges but the DA said no. Meaning, the DA had all the info they were going to have and decided a conviction could not be had.

[NK]

Clarice-- honestly, yes. 2 men in a fight one shoots the other, society has to look long and hard at that. GZ set up the neighb watch, GZ got out of his SUV on a pouring rain night to follow TMartin, GZ shot TMartin. Maybe TMartin was a thug wannabe that needed killing, but the State has a right to say that a trial will decide that. This is not a case where GZ was in his truck and a gangbanger tried to grab the truck and his money and GZ responded with deadly force, or the 100lbs abused wife got so scared that she knifed her 250lbs husband during the 20th beating. This case is very different, how much a defense will cost is the least of society's problems.

[Some guy]

There is something about this case that I simply don’t understand…

Why are so many left leaners so clearly invested in a case that obviously jumped the shark within 24 hours of the Community-Organizer-in-Chief’s rhetorical adoption of Martin?

I don’t see any kind of win politically in this for them. This was all over a quite a while ago, and the One doesn’t have the skills required to triangulate this into any kind of net positive. The endgame is going to be, “Latino democrat convicted of killing black child” or “Whitey gets away with it”. Either way, Florida is now lost in the next election to the left, as they’ve pitted core segments of their own base against each other.

Other than a small interest in protecting self-defense rights, the right doesn’t even have a dog in this fight. And in my humble opinion, self-defense rights are not in any danger here, regardless of the wet dreams of some on the left. If the evidence comes out that Zimmerman was acting outside the bounds of self-defense, hardly anyone on the right is going to be upset if he goes to prison.

If they had any brains, everyone from Chris Matthews down to keyboard warriors like bunkerbluster would be running away from this story has fast as they could, yet they can’t help themselves. Ironically, in their desperation to keep hope (or at least the fabricated narrative) alive, they are only exasperating the damage this does to their own interests.

Corey filing charges and arresting Zimmerman is the worst possible outcome for everyone who was pretending to care about justice in an attempt to make political hay. Their slight chance to get out from under this albatross was for it to fade away as quickly has possible while most people’s understanding of the case was based on what they heard on the Today Show.

[derwill]

I don't think Z should walk if there exists evidence that the shooting does not fall under the category of self-defense according to the law. So far what facts we have seem to at least somewhat support Z's claim (i.e. an assault by Martin on Z preceded the shooting), but I also acknowledge that we might not have all the facts. And since this is the real world and not a TV show, there might not exist enough evidence to prove things one way or the other. Only two people really know exactly what happened that night. One of them is dead and the other for reasons of self-interest might not be telling the whole truth.

This is what happens when you succumb to the rule of the mob. It stops being about justice and the law and becomes tribal. Punish whitey vs. punish the race baiters. Gun rights vs. gun control. Wingnuts vs. Libtards.

Furthermore we all know that we wouldn't even be talking about this if Trayvon Martin had been a white teenager and/or the Hispanic shooter's last name had been Garcia. The race baiters saw the name Zimmerman and made an assumption that would be ironically funny if it wasn't so serious.

It is rather telling, though, that it is only us wingnuts who seem to care that that a Hispanic Democrat is being pilloried by race baiters out for a buck and a media that has gone so far beyond the bounds of decency that they resorted to making shit up.

Justice for Trayvon should not come at the price of a government- sanctioned lynching by the mob, regardless of the degree of Zimmerman's culpability in Trayvon's death.

[Extraneus]

I know looks can be deceiving, but now that we finally have recent photos of both guys, who looks more likely to be crying for help?

[Steve]

"... As to the argument that we don't know all the facts, well, yeah. But one fact we do know is that the local cops and DA never charged in three weeks. ..."

something else we know is that Zimmerman spoke to the police the night of the shooting AND he has not been charged with lying to the investigators. Since he was not charged initially he must have told the investigators he shot Martin point blank during the struggle.

[NK]

Ig-- the cruel realities of the 'criminal justice system' are why I think GZ/O'meara will be chasing a plea. The problem will be the prick Holder wanting to charge GZ federally.

TomM-- I think your last 12:33 comment about Corey was way offside -- AT THIS POINT. She's spent the last couple of years overcharging gangbangers accused of gun violence and consoling 'victims' families-- how does she turn around and take the opposite approach in this case? If she keeps up the act and demands a trial --plea bargain be damned-- well then she may very well be a media whore. We'll see.

[cboldt]

-- Corey filing charges and arresting Zimmerman is the worst possible outcome for everyone who was pretending to care about justice in an attempt to make political hay. --

I don't know about "worst," but it inflames the situation both in the short term, and in the long term.

[James D.]

NK, a criminal trial isn't supposed to ber about "finding out what happened."

Speaking as a non-lawyer here, the way I was taught that our system works is that you have a criminal trial when the state believes both that a crime has been committed, and that it can prove that beyond a reasonable doubt to a jury.

You don't put somebody on trial for murder with the possibility of life in prison, unless you are absolutely convinced - and you have hard, incontrovertible evidence that backs it up - that it was actual murder as defined by the law, and not a case of self-defense, or an "accident" (as TM's mother now apparently believes it was). Or at least you shouldn't.

And as for the cost of the defense not being one of society's problems, it damn well is. We talk about due process, but when the state has all the power, a full staff or prosecutors and support personnel, and (as far as the defendant is concerned) an unlimited budget to work with, what kind of due process is really possible if you can't afford to hire a good (expensive) lawyer, pay for expert witnesses, and so on and so forth.

[narciso]

Because, murder like the 14 people that were shot at a funeral is the point of the matter,

[NK]

cboldt-- your "ever so slight" change of the facts (gangbangers attacking and old man) was in reality a completely different set of circumstances that put shooting in the category I consider clearcut self-defense where the State should give the shooter a medal. Just like the house break-in or carjacking examples I gave.

As far as my choosing to deal with realities rather than abstract notions of 'justice' I am clear about that with clients and adversaries, and it has served me well. It's nothing to apologize for. BTW-- have a missed commenters such as you and RobC acknowledging that my realism was a lot more accurate predicting how this would go?

[Enlightened]

Ex - I honestly do not think Martin was crying, shouting or screaming for help. I believe he was the aggressor, I think he had a gansta-attitude as evidenced by his tweets and apparent school disciplinary problems, and his call with his GF wherein he allegedly said he won't run away from GZ. He was NOT scared of GZ.

The women that allegedly heard a "child" crying for help - did not hear Martin.

[boris]

Lots of people don't really believe in self defense. If a state is going to pass CC and SYG then the protections put in place for those who excercise the rights should be observed. Otherwise just pull the whole notion and go British subject.

CC saves lives but lots of people don't really believe in self defense.

[NK]

JamesD-- I don't disagree with what you say-- but the GZ case, is a very unusual set of facts. It's almost like a 1970s TV cop show. One thing that is very typical-- the overcharge. Prosecutors see gun violence as a top priority-- all over the country. They routinely overcharge for gun violence-- especially when someone is killed.

[Appalled]

Our Gracious Host:

As to the argument that we don't know all the facts, well, yeah. But one fact we do know is that the local cops and DA never charged in three weeks.

And, quite honestly, I would not use that as proof of GZ's likely nonculpability, as you seem to want, in the same way I would not use that as evidence of the City of Sanford's racism. Both are possible, but not exclusive, explanations of the delay.

I do think the Sanford PD would have delivered some self-serving leaks about key evidende they had dug up, if they had any.

And mess up a possible case by helping Zimmerman frame a later story, based on the leaked evidence? The stuff that has leaked seems to have come from people who may work at the office, but who are not directly invovlved with the case. This suggests how 911 and surveillance videos can get out, and how rumors of a poiceman's affadavit can get out, but why we do not see the ballistic hard stuff.

By the way, do you mind if I start calling you Tom? Maguire sounds hostile, and the "TM" nickname I have used for years has now been assigned to the decedent Mr. Martin.

[Ignatz]

--Ig-- the cruel realities of the 'criminal justice system' are why I think GZ/O'meara will be chasing a plea.--

Maybe they will and maybe they won't.
What is a surety is there are thousands of innocent people around the country with criminal and misdemeanor convictions involved in cases we've never heard of who copped a plea simply to avoid an overcharge.
There are almost zero practical mechanisms available to control that particular abuse even when egregious.

[cboldt]

-- in the category I consider clearcut self-defense where the State should give the shooter a medal. --

What makes the one case clearcut? Make the two people comparable size and age, and one of them is loaded with animus and starts a fight, the other one is loaded with good will. By the standard you articulated, there must be a trial, because one was armed, the other not, and the unarmed one is dead.

Same with a mugging where the mugger doesn't display or possess a knife, bat, or gun.

-- As far as my choosing to deal with realities rather than abstract notions of 'justice' I am clear about that with clients and adversaries, and it has served me well. --

I understand, and do the same thing in different but concrete situations.

-- ave a missed commenters such as you and RobC acknowledging that my realism was a lot more accurate predicting how this would go? --

All hail NK. Way to go! And, if you're right about Zimmerman being unjustly railroaded to a manslaughter plea, we can celebrate your brand of justice some more.

Just so you get my point, I'm not critical of YOU for perceiving reality. My bitch is about the system gone upside down on justice.

[Porchlight]

The race baiters saw the name Zimmerman and made an assumption that would be ironically funny if it wasn't so serious.

derwill,

We've talked before about Hispanic voters' reactions to this case, but I also wonder how Florida's large Jewish voter population feels about that assumption, especially after Crown Heights and Sharpton and Jackson's long histories of anti-Semitism.

[boris]

So when getting one's brains pounded on cement ... the rule should be: shoot a "real" gangbanger get a medal, shoot a wannabe gangsta go to trial.

[MarkO]

"Send better witnesses."

Frequently, there are not better witnesses. And these two might do. They will be on the stand with their stories, raising the question of speculation versus reasonable inference from the evidence. I hear the phrase, lack of foundation. That they heard no fight is evidence of something, but what? Bad hearing? No fight? Does it impeach Zimmerman?

Based on the publicly available evidence, it seems a thin case. But, Libby was convicted on a thin case.

Aren't there eye witnesses to the fight? The local Fox reporter interviewed at least one. Has he recanted? For obvious reasons, he would be reluctant to be seen and heard if his story contradicts the prevailing and very dangerous mob.

[rse]

Can anyone tell me where corey went to law school?

Has she always been a prosecutor of some sort? Never in private practice?

[narciso]

Which side again, covered up why he was 200 miles away from home and school, who dowdified
the audiotape, and the transcript of calls, for good measure, who spread the mugshots of
Zimmerman from 2005, and the angelic pics of the victim. Who altered the police station tape.

There have intimations of cold blooded murder, which necessitate bounties, death threats to the defendant and his family,

[Thomas Collins]

It appears, rse, that Corey went to law school at University of Florida and has been practicing law for over 30 years. See LUN.

[NK]

I believe in CC and SYG law. Self-Defense is a pillar of a free society.It is a natural right. But rights come with responsibilities and duties. GZ has a right to carry -- to carry and to defend against the gang atack in a public place or against the carjacker-- GZ was irresponsible to carry his 9mm into following a teenage figure on a rainy night. He should have stayed with his truck and reported to the cops-- yes even if the 'fucker' escaped. He followed with his 9mm, Tragedy ensued.

[MarkO]

"He followed with his 9mm, Tragedy ensued."

I see a post hoc problem with this logic.

[Thomas Collins]

I haven't checked the LUNed Wiki entry for accuracy, so further facts might come up undercutting what I am about to say. However, it appears Corey has spent scant time in private practice and most of her time as a prosecutor.

[Thomas Collins]

More info on Corey at LUN.

[boris]

"I believe in CC and SYG law"

Had GZ been an off duty cop on his way to the store when he noticed a suspiciously acting individual and exited his pickup to keep an eye on that individual while waiting for the black and white he called for, and events transpired as in this case, I predict NK would NOT consider the cop GZ to have been irresponsible. So the word "believe" seems to mean something different between us.

[NK]

Ig-- overcharging is by definition abusive because-- it's overcharging. But the numbers say that the biggest subjects of overcharging are young men 18-30, and the majority of those young men are black and latino. Those of us who call for law and order have to recognize, like any other system, there will be abuses and mistakes. If TMartin grabbed GZ's 9mm and shot GZ-- this would have been a 2 day story in the Orlando area. TMartin killing GZ would have never been discussed at JOM, and and people like me would say hang TMartin high, just another gangbangin' killer. I am trying to remember that.

[narciso]

It seems they have a similar cultural problem
across the ocean,

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/12/opinion/who-gets-to-be-french.html

[Enlightened]

"GZ was irresponsible to carry his 9mm into following a teenage figure on a rainy night"

How did GZ know Martin was a teenager? What if Martin had been 20, 22, 25, 30 years old - are you saying it is because of Martin's age that GZ was irresponsible?

[Porchlight]

ave a missed commenters such as you and RobC acknowledging that my realism was a lot more accurate predicting how this would go

Yes, your predictions were undoubtedly more accurate.

However, there's a distinction you're not acknowledging as cboldt points out. Many commenters thought GZ *shouldn't* have been charged; nevertheless, they acknowledged that there was a good possibility he *would* be charged.

You, on the other hand, seemed at times in your predictions to be working in the opposite direction: he's likely to be charged, therefore he should be charged, so that this can all be settled at trial with the best possible social outcome and maximum relief of any political pressures on the SP.

Can you see where that might inspire a bit of cynicism?

[NK]

In some states off-duty cops in fact have a "duty" to intervene and arrest criminals even when 'off-duty'--in other they are merely permitted to intervene. So every state of which I am aware has for decades made a big distinction between off duty cops and civilians -- and I agree with that. As far as beliefs -- they are by definition opinions and judgments and they differ between people. The difference between you and me is I believe the right things.

[RattlerGator]

Obviously, we've got some good people on the board still suffering a hangover from the double dose of Scooter Libby and Duke Lacrosse. I'm hoping time will lessen that effect. Because they are not connected to what is going on here. And some seem to be walking down a road that makes the perfect an enemy of the good. Real life can be maddeningly messy without anyone being a media whore, etc.

"Some Guy" you may be correct. This thing, I suspect, evolved from a trial lawyers attempt to shape the battlefield so as to ensure that money damages in civil court were at least a possibility -- into an opportunistic political play that may (hopefully) backfire in the long term.

[Rob Crawford]

NK:

2 men in a fight one shoots the other, society has to look long and hard at that.

Society's representatives -- the DA and local law enforcement -- did, and decided it was self defense.

The mob's representatives decided otherwise.

[PDinDetroit]

GZ was irresponsible to carry his 9mm into following a teenage figure on a rainy night

I think we can all agree that GZ would probably have been better off not leaving his vehicle.

However, being disarmed at ANY TIME is simply foolish as one never knows where one may be attacked. A Person has Right to Life and a Right to Protect That Life wherever they are legally allowed to be. If GZ was attacked and killed without a means of Self-Defense, that would be irresponsible.

[Some guy]

“GZ was irresponsible to carry his 9mm into following a teenage figure on a rainy night.”

yet…

“GZ has a right to carry -- to carry and to defend against the gang attack in a public place”

How exactly was GZ to distinguish that the 6’2” figure who has concealed his head with a hood and was encountered on a dark and rainy night was absolutely not a gangbanger?

Under those conditions, would you be able to distinguish, to a certainty, if someone was 17 or 22, even if you had a face-to-face encounter?

Or even if he had a "Hello, I'm only 17" sticker on his hoodie, that he wasn't a gangbanger.

I mean, in one case you state he has a legitimate right, however, you don't provide any reasonable evidence how that right somehow magically became "irresponsible" in those specific circumstances.

[derwill]

Some guy,

I too am wondering why the left has chosen this particular hill to fight and die for.

Their great white villain had to be downsized to a "white Hispanic". The media got caught in a case of malfeasance so egregious that the ten percent of the country that still puts any credence in their credibility has been downsized to five. But worst of all I think is that-- while they might not say so out loud--a whole lot of people have got to be thinking that because of the color of their skin, Obama's Justice Department might only not protect them, it might actually persecute them.

And something more, almost too scary to think about is the fact that because Holder didn't nip the NBP's bounty bullshit right in the bud, there are a lot of disaffected youths out there, seeped in gang culture, who could decide they have carte blanche to go out and kill a whitey in the name of justice for Trayvon. One or two isolated incidences would be containable, but in these days of social media something like that could catch on like wildfire and then all bets would be off.

[Rob Crawford]

Why are so many left leaners so clearly invested in a case that obviously jumped the shark within 24 hours of the Community-Organizer-in-Chief’s rhetorical adoption of Martin?

Because:

1) It was championed by one of their leading lights, Al Sharpton.

2) It conforms to their bigotries, at least so long as they keep saying "white Hispanic" and "young black man". (I suspect that if Zimmerman's last name had been "Garcia", Crump wouldn't have given the family the time of day, and Sharpton definitely wouldn't have.)

3) It gives them a chance to attack self-defense laws and gun ownership in general.

4) They're reflexively rejecting whatever their "enemies" are saying.

[NK]

It was plain as day that he would be charged. My opinion was -- and is-- that since the State could no way expect to prove the charge beyond a reasonable doubt to a 'reasonable' jury, "no good would come of this." But I don't think charging GZ is 'unjust' because Corey is treating him --so far-- like other shooter. If TMartin shot GZ in that fight, I would want TMartin prosecuted to the fullest extent-- I'm trying to remember that. I'm actively rying not to be cynical-- realistic, but not cynical.

[PDinDetroit]

The difference between you and me is I believe the right things.

How very arrogant of you.

[rse]

Thank you TC. And her behavior at the presser was consistent with victims' rights advocacy but why does she only see TM as the victim?

She acted like he was the baby-faced blameless teen.

The facts as they appear support GZ also being a victim of a crime, just not the ultimate victim. There didn't seem to be any balancing of that reality.

She may simply not be that support and feeling has become her habit of mind. The kind of law she has always practiced is where you go with a degree without distinction at best in the middle of the class. That would also explain that strange performance as would having lost her job in that office previously. She's beyond her range, instincts, and this job is it for her. It's what she knows how to do.

A performance that horrified so many though means she now needs the mob to stay where she is.

[Jay]

He followed with his 9mm, Tragedy ensued.

Posted by: NK

Really?

Are you an eye witness to the event?

Given we know you are not, you know what you wrote is true how _______ again?

[Porchlight]

But I don't think charging GZ is 'unjust' because Corey is treating him --so far-- like other shooter.

Like other shooters in cases where the DA and local law enforcement had already reviewed the evidence and decided self defense was justified and that he shouldn't be charged? Those kinds of shooters?

[Ignatz]

--How very arrogant of you.--

If you disagree with somebody and you don't think you're right haven't you got a bit of an unresolved problem?

[NK]

Some guy-- sorry if I didn't make my point clear. GZ --IMO- was irresponsible because he was armed and FOLLOWED the hoodied figure. If GZ is to be believed -- and I do believe him-- he thought the figure was a burglar, and if he was, he was following a 6'2" man with burglar tools and maybe even a weapon. I bet what GZ did violated what cops are taught to do-- yes FOLLOWING the figure was irresponsible. I think the results, kind of prove that, don't they?

[Ignatz]

--It was plain as day that he would be charged.--

You mean once Corey was appointed?
Because prior to that it was not.

[Jay]

yes FOLLOWING the figure was irresponsible. I think the results, kind of prove that, don't they?

Posted by: NK

You keep saying this as if you know it were true.

Zimmerman FOLLOWED Martin how far?

If he FOLLOWED him (It is cute you're using all caps) why did he tell the 9-11 dispatcher he lost sight of Martin?

[rse]

Should be sharp, not support.

Practicing law for her may not be an intellectual process so much as an emotional, empathetic one. And she has had many years for that mindset to become engrained.

She did not come across as having thoughtfully laid out her position. She feels and acts.

And this is the wrong set of facts for that approach. Whatever happens to GZ she will never recover the rep she had at 5:45 yesterday professionally.

[PDinDetroit]

If you disagree with somebody and you don't think you're right haven't you got a bit of an unresolved problem?

Being confident in your position is far different than the arrogance and judgmental postings NK has done here.

[PDinDetroit]

Off?

[NK]

Ig-- yes, once the Special Prosecutor was appointed, it was plain as day, yes. Special Prosecutors prosecute. I disagree with people who say the 'mob' indicted GZ, the "tough on crime" prosecutor did. She overcharged, yes, but did anybody here complain when she 'clogged the courts' by overchaging dozens of gangbangers for gun and street violence?

[narciso]

Police officers get shot rather frequently, there were 7 in one month, last January, there
was a nice funeral, and then they went back
to bashing the cops, even though in the most
prominent example, the subject in question, should never have been released in the first place.

[Extraneus]

Shouldn't we just agree that being a neighborhood watchman is irresponsible by definition? I mean, even if he didn't actually follow him, or initiate any hostilities, the results still prove that, don't they? Even if he wasn't carrying and had gotten his skull cracked open instead of shooting the guy, the results would still prove that.

An unarmed teenager is dead; therefore, GZ was irresponsible.

[Rob Crawford]

The difference between you and me is I believe the right things.

Do ya get a halo with that degree of smugness?

[NK]

Jay-- GZ saw the figure from his truck, stopped his truck, folloed the figure while calling 911. Yes he followed him, that's not hard.

[Some guy]

"FOLLOWED the hoodied figure."

What if the figure was no longer in your sight? If you go around a blind corner to see if the individual is still in complex, is that, by your definition, irresponsible following?

[Rob Crawford]

I mean, in one case you state he has a legitimate right, however, you don't provide any reasonable evidence how that right somehow magically became "irresponsible" in those specific circumstances.

Easy -- she holds the aggressor blameless and assumes perfect foreknowledge on the part of the armed man.

[cboldt]

-- because Corey is treating him --so far-- like other shooter. --

Which other cases has she reversed the PD? I'm looking at this case as exceptional, a flyer, out of the norm.

[Jay]

yes FOLLOWING the figure was irresponsible. I think the results, kind of prove that, don't they?

Posted by: NK

Well, this statement presumes the following led directly to a confrontation.

Meaning, it ignores the possibility Martin attacked Zimmerman while Zimmerman was no longer FOLLOWING Martin.

Using this logic, it was irresponsible to carry the 9MM.

Using this logic, it was irresponsible to get in the car in the first place.

[Chubby]

it was clear as day that there was a narrative formed in the media; it was not as clear as day Angela Corey would adopt that narrative as her apparent premise.

[Rob Crawford]

But I don't think charging GZ is 'unjust' because Corey is treating him --so far-- like other shooter.

EXCEPT SHE ISN'T.

Here's a story about other cases in Florida. There are cases that are less defensible than Zimmerman where the authorities have ruled it was self defense -- including ones where the attacker was "unarmed". The difference in this case is the media attention and the race-hustlers.

[cboldt]

Next Court hearing is May 29. All records will be sealed (so much for transparency).

Trayvon's mom walked back her "accident" remark. She later backpedaled on her statement on MSNBC-TV, saying, “George Zimmerman stalked my son and murdered him in cold blood.”

[Rob Crawford]

An unarmed teenager is dead; therefore, GZ was irresponsible.

If that "unarmed teenager" hadn't chosen to commit assault and battery, he'd be alive today. The responsibility lies with the person who decides to break the law.

[cboldt]

The judge set George Zimmerman's formal arraignment for May 29th ...

That gives O'Mara and Corey time to file their respective motions as to the immunity, so that the judge has the immunity issue before him at that formal arraignment.

[Rob Crawford]

Jay-- GZ saw the figure from his truck, stopped his truck, folloed the figure while calling 911.

You have the timeline all wrong.

[NK]

RobC-- no halo. But I called this quite accurately correct? I must have had some idea what I was talking about, correct? Last week 'Boris'called me an idiot and a liar for misrepping your comments, correct? I don't accept being falsely accused by idiots, and I don't forget things like that(character flaw). If I disagree with a statement I give my opinion and explain myself -- I think that what I've done with your comments and that's not being smug because I give the same privilege to anyone else who backs up their opinions. If I may, I suggest you read Rattler's comments of yesterday and today. He's given the best rebuttal of why the over the top criticism of Corey is just not factual or fair. There are only 2 proven bad actors in Florida in the last month, the media, and the race hustlers. Everyone else has be trying to do the right thing in response a killing in the most ridiculous and absurd circumstances. Nobody should join a mob, mobs are senseless and dangerous -- even a mob that wants to let a guy who was trying to help his neighbors walk without consequence, after he killed someone. Maybe that's the right result, but you can't attack Corey for saying that should only happen after indictment.

[Rob Crawford]

Next Court hearing is May 29. All records will be sealed (so much for transparency).

The defense should leak like sieves.

[Some guy]

"Trayvon's mom walked back her "accident" remark. "

Funny. When I heard the accident comment on the morning news, I cynically thought, 'how long until her lawyers coach her out of that?'

[PDinDetroit]

Rob Crawford - given the lack of response by NK, I would tend to believe it is one of those people who state "It is a Right, but you should not do it".

I would believe that since Zimmerman was a Concealed Carry License Holder, he was CC'ing the pistol so he would have had to remove the pistol from the CC Holster and store it in the vehicle before getting out (if he had a Car Gun Safe or another method to store it). Given that he appeared to believe someone suspicious was present, I highly doubt anyone would disarm given that situation.

[Chubby]

NK, I don't think the discussions were necessarily all about being able to foretell what was going to happen, and then that person gets the prize. They were about what should and could have happened.

[Jim Ryan]

How Corey sees this:

June 21, 2034

COREY: Yeah, there I was, kids. But I knew he'd be found not guilty. He needed his name cleared. The community, nay, the country, needed healing and a sense of closure. So, I indicted him. I knew I would be providing healing to the entire black community of the United States and at the same time giving a man his good name, nay, his whole life, back. Risky? Brash? Maybe, but I knew what I was doing. And it turned out to be a win-win.

KIDS: Wow! Grandma is a really important person. In a daring move which she knew would work, she helped heal an entire nation!

[Rob Crawford]

But I called this quite accurately correct?

That your years of legal practice make you comfortable with the abuse and malicious prosecution of an innocent man shouldn't be a badge of pride.

Corey's railroading Zimmerman. Contra your claim that she's treating him "like any other shooter", she's not -- and she's ignoring state law to do it.

Incident date: July 17, 2009

Location: During party at victim's home in Fort Myers, Lee County

What happened: Battle fatally shot Bonilla after an argument at a party. Earlier in the dispute, Bonilla had fired his gun into the ground and beat Battle in the head. Then Bonilla ran inside his apartment, gave his gun to a friend, telling him to hide it, and returned unarmed to confront Battle. Battle, meanwhile, had retrieved his gun from his car and fatally shot Bonilla.

The outcome: Battle was arrested by police and charged with second-degree murder. But charges were dropped by the state attorney. "Under current Florida law the defendant had no duty to retreat," assistant state attorney wrote. According to the Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure, prosecutors must file charges against a defendant within 33 days of an arrest. The state attorney wrote in a memo that there wasn't enough information available about whether Battle knew Bonilla wasn't armed when he walked back out of the house and what was said before the fatal shots were fired. Lee said the poor audio quality of witness statements taken at the police station makes it difficult to determine what happened in the "critical moments before the fatal shots were fired."

[Rob Crawford]

One of Romine's cases is a prime example. In 2008, his client, Charles Podany, noticed a truck speeding past his house in Thonotosassa, where his children play in the front yard. Podany fetched his handgun and rode his bicycle down the street to the house where the truck was parked to get a license plate number.

He found himself in a confrontation with Casey Landes, 24, who had been a passenger in the truck. Landes, legally drunk, attacked the smaller Podany and wound up on top of him. Podany drew his weapon and fired twice. The second bullet entered Landes' left cheek and struck the back of his skull, killing him instantly.

Podany was charged with manslaughter. But before trial, a judge ruled that despite initiating the confrontation by arming himself and riding his bicycle to the speeder's house, Podany was in a place he had a legal right to be and he was carrying a weapon he had a legal right to carry. He found that Podany feared for his life and had the right to defend himself with deadly force.

[Rob Crawford]

In May, Carlos Catalan-Flores, 26, a security guard at a Tampa strip club called Flash Dancers, confronted men who were drinking beer in the parking lot. One of the men threw a beer bottle at Catalan-Flores' head and prepared to throw another. Rather than taking cover inside the club, or using his baton or pepper spray to protect himself, Catalan-Flores drew his weapon and began firing. Several of the six shots hit the man who threw the beer.

A judge ruled that Catalan-Flores was justified, even though he initiated the confrontation. Being hit by a beer bottle constitutes a forcible felony, so he had the right to shoot, to protect himself.

[Rob Crawford]

A man got into a shootout on a Sarasota street, for instance, killing a man who owed him money and endangering bystanders. But a judge granted him immunity because a witness testified that his rival had claimed he had "fire in his pocket" and threatened the shooter. Police found no weapon at the scene, but that didn't matter. What mattered was that the shooter believed his enemy had a weapon and was ready to use it.

[NK]

Rob@2:09-- Corey is prosecuting a 12yo as an adult for murder, she indicted a wife who claimed self-defense against an abusive husband. Indicting GZ and overcharging with 2d degree murder is consistent with her history.

[James D.]

Corey is prosecuting a 12yo as an adult for murder, she indicted a wife who claimed self-defense against an abusive husband. Indicting GZ and overcharging with 2d degree murder is consistent with her history.

It's consistent, but that doesn't make it right. Even if prosecutors all across the country regularly do it, doesn't make it right.

The fact that it's comon practice doesn't mean we shouldn't criticize it, if it's an unethical or immoral practice.

[NK]

RobC-- as you know I disagree with you when you say Corey is 'railroading and maliciously' prosecuting GZ. May I point out, look at the examples you gave in the last few posts, those men (one of them a licensed security guard) were all indicted by local Florida prosecutors -- just like GZ. Their self-defense motions succeeded in court after they were charged. Those cases (even though Corey was not the local prosecutor) just reinforce my opinion that Corey is not acted in an extraordinary manner.

[cboldt]

-- Being hit by a beer bottle constitutes a forcible felony, so he had the right to shoot, to protect himself. --

No comparison to the soft taps afforded by a skittles-handed little boy.

Plus, the mob.

[NK]

JamesD-- you have an absolute right to criticize a public official. I object to her gross overcharge of 2d degree murder. But people can't say she's railroading GZ and treating him completely differently than prior cases. That's just not true.

[cboldt]

-- But people can't say she's railroading GZ and treating him completely differently than prior cases. That's just not true. --

Where is one other instance of her charging murder 2, where the police did not find probable cause that the use of force was unjustified?

I asked in some earlier thread if the procedural trail left by the prosecutor is always void of mention of 776.032; or if that is normal.

[RandyB]

On a separate note, I'm wondering about the press referring to Trayvon Martin as simply "Trayvon." They do this a lot.

How often does the press refer to other victims by their first name?

[Clarice]

I am in full agreement with cboldt and Rob, and couldn't find NK's arguments less persuasive than I already do I'm glad I'm not teaching high school civics because I'd find the conflict between law and practice so great as to inspire nothing but contempt for the Corey's of this country.

[cboldt]

Ahhh ... maybe all that is being sealed is an expansion of the initial information.

“There is a certain amount of information in the court file that includes personal information about some witnesses, addresses, telephone numbers,” O’Mara said

That does not mean that future motions and responses will likewise be sealed.

State of Florida v. Zimmerman, 1712FO4573, Circuit Court of the 18th Judicial Circuit (Seminole County)

[cboldt]

-- couldn't find NK's arguments less persuasive than I already do --

The reason I don't find the arguments (that this is sound practice, as a matter of law) persuasive is that often the answers are not responsive to the questions or hypothetical scenarios.

But as a window into how the law really works, well, I think NK's points are an accurate reflection of the state of criminal law. Getting a fair shake is a crap shoot. The boundary between ethical and unethical is down in the sewer, not at some "elevated" plane of an honest search for truth. The process is one of expedience, cash flow, and political maneuvering.

[NK]

Clarice-- and yet people like us applaud prosecutors like Corey when she takes a hard line on gangbangers who commit violence on the dtreet and make our cities safe for decent people. Good/decent people in DC curse the local US Attorney for not taking on street gangs in DC when they go wilding on Wisconsin Ave an smash windows at posh shops and overturn tables in cafes. We want hardline prosecutors when we see ugly violence in the street. Don't we?

[Mark Buehner]

The other possibility is that Zimmerman said something incriminating to the prosecutor- apparently he's been talking to them without a lawyer present. That brings up any number of possible avenues to get to the murder charge.

[cboldt]

-- Indicting GZ and overcharging with 2d degree murder is consistent with her history. --

I don't see the parallel in the law. The 12 y/o was the aggressor and the issue is not guilt, but of sentencing.

I see a parallel in the political realm, where she can balance being harsh against one "child" by being lenient toward another; but as far as the Zimmerman case goes, it's the only case I'm aware of that afford a view of Corey's attitude toward what appears to be a justified case of self defense. She ought to rebut the self defense claim, a little bit, to lend some legitimacy to her decision.

[cboldt]

-- We want hardline prosecutors when we see ugly violence in the street. --

What's that got to do with being hardline a person who appears to be non-agressive and is defending himself?

If I have to have her on my back, in order to get her on the gangbangers back, then I say get her the hell off my back.

[NK]

Cboldt@3:23 -- fair enough. But the system is not always corrupt (no human system is perfect!) My stock in trade is fighting with government agencies in negotiations and in court. What I demand from the agencies is consistent procedures and results. If they are singling my client out for a different result, I nail them in court. And mostly, mostly, government bureaucrats are aware of their obligation, and mostly try to be consistent. Mostly. I think people on JOM -- TomM included-- the last few days have been grossly inaccurate and unfair claiming Corey is 'railroading' GZ. see no evidence of that -- yet.

[Porchlight]

May I point out, look at the examples you gave in the last few posts, those men (one of them a licensed security guard) were all indicted by local Florida prosecutors -- just like GZ.

GZ was not indicted by a local Florida prosecutor. He was indicted by a special prosecutor, appointed by the governor, after the local DA decided not to charge him.

Those cases (even though Corey was not the local prosecutor) just reinforce my opinion that Corey is not acted in an extraordinary manner.

In order to determine whether Corey's actions wrt Zimmerman are extraordinary, you need to compare them to her actions wrt other shooters whose local DA had already decided their claim to self defense was legit and declined to charge.

Otherwise it's apples to oranges.

What am I missing?

[NK]

cboldt-- Corey charged a 12yo as an adult for murder. A 12yo!, that's pretty out there as far as overcharging goes. If I haven't clear, charging 2nd degree murder is a gross overcharge -- but she routinely does that. If she acted differently here, the race hustlers could have made a big deal of that. She is being consistent-- so far.

[cboldt]

-- I think people on JOM -- TomM included-- the last few days have been grossly inaccurate and unfair claiming Corey is 'railroading' GZ. see no evidence of that -- yet. --

I've expressed precisely why I come that preliminary conclusion. Her presentation is imbalanced. She does not acknowledge 776.032 or the presence of a self defense argument. She has not even mentioned it, let alone express why she finds Zimmerman's self defense claim to not meet the legal threshold for immunity. She's missing part of the law that applies to the case, that she is duty bound to enforce, just as much as she is duty bound to enforce the homicide statutes.

[Clarice]

Much as I want prosecutors to go after violent criminals, I do not want them to ignore the law to do so. Under Holder I'm seeing quite the opposite--a failure to prosecute criminals like the NBPP even when their conduct is clearly illegal and even when they have by failing to deny charges, admitted liability and then pressing for prosecutions when the evidence as far as I can see is not sufficient to warrant it.

[NK]

Porch-- see my 3:37. Corey has charged a 12yo as an adult -- on a murder charge. She indicted a woman who killed an abusive husband as he was striking her. Judges complained about her overcrowdng court dockets with a high volume of overcharged cases. So her public record is consistent with with she's done here. BTW-- she's a plain old local prosecutor elected in the Jacksonville area, the Governor appointed her, when the local Sanford prosecutor recused himself. She's plain vanilla prosecutor, just from a different jurisdiction.