17 yo Trayvon Martin Shot to Death by Neighborhood Watch Captain #25

[nomoresorrow]

Originally Posted by octobermoon

(Gently pulls Nomoresorrow's head out of the sand.)

come on girl don't give up just yet, there is work to be done for our children to see.

Amen - I'm no quitter!

[jaded cat]

Originally Posted by katydid23

I totally agree with you. Chit happens. I think the only reason people question TM's dad that night is because that very day Trayvon was suspended for 10 days and for the third time. So some might wonder why the kid was even allowed out the door that night. And why dad just assumed he went to the movies. He was suspended that day and they had no problem with him going off to the movies, with out asking or telling anyone, after telling his kid brother he was going off to get him candy? I am not bashing, just explaining why some might wonder about it. If my 17 yr old says I am coming right back with candy, and I am just walking to the store, then I don't go to bed assuming everything is fine, if he never comes back that night. I know a few people will yell at me for asking these questions, but I am responding to a post in which the questions were already asked.

Your friends son was in his own hometown, so it made more sense that he had found a ride with a friend somewhere. And he wasnt grounded.

So now we're back to questioning the Martin's parenting skills. I don't think that's an appropriate topic. TM had no car. He had a cell phone. He walked to the convenience store and back. What does any of that have to do with TM being shot by GZ?

[mikeysmommom]

Originally Posted by nomoresorrow

By projecting the outcome, you're essentially saying, IF the judge rules against GZ's SYG defense, he/she is only doing so because of public pressure? You couldn't/would'nt accept that a decision made against the SYG defense by a judge could be grounded in exact law pertaining to the SYG defense itself? Cause I'm thinking, IF the judge rules in favor of the SYG defense, he/she will include an explanation of the law and how it applies in this case and, while I may not like it, my anger will be directed at changing the SYG law itself - if that includes PEACEFUL civil disobedience, so be it.

AMOO~

You may accept it peacefully but JMO a lot will not.

[Reader]

Originally Posted by jjenny

And the difference between regular SYG and self-defense would be what? SYG is a self-defense law.

The difference is that the one who feels they are being attacked do not have to retreat and it applies any place, not just a home, car, etc.:

(1) A person is presumed to have held a reasonable fear of imminent peril of death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another when using defensive force that is intended or likely to cause death or great bodily harm to another if:

(a) The person against whom the defensive force was used was in the process of unlawfully and forcefully entering, or had unlawfully and forcibly entered, a dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle, or if that person had removed or was attempting to remove another against that person’s will from the dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle; and

(b) The person who uses defensive force knew or had reason to believe that an unlawful and forcible entry or unlawful and forcible act was occurring or had occurred.

SYG:

(3) 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.

http://www.leg.state.fl.us/statutes/.../0776.013.html

[lauriej]

Originally Posted by mikeysmommom

I wonder if GZ goes before a judge and he deems it a SYG case and releases him ,Can GZ turn around and sue for being jailed?The reason for the SYG is so if you have to use force to protect yourself you do not wind up in jail.

--absolutely not.

--he wasn't arrested the night of the shooting b/c at the time SPD 'didn't have any evidence to dispute' george's SYG explanation---chief lee says that "prohibited" then from making an arrest, that night.

--following an investigation-----the SA found there was probable cause to arrest george, supported by the investigators affidavits.

--if he "wins" the SYG motion to dismiss hearing, it simply means he will be immune from further prosecution on the charge---not that his arrest was 'wrong' in the 1st place.

[katydid23]

Originally Posted by jaded cat

So now we're back to questioning the Martin's parenting skills. I don't think that's a appropriate topic. TM had no car. He had a cell phone. He walked to the convenience store and back. What does any of that have to do with TM being shot by GZ?

I was replying to someone else's post about that night. I am not questioning their parenting skills.

[jjenny]

Originally Posted by AngelWings444

I think RH would know more about his own cases than CBS news.

And what he said about himself doesn't mean he didn't win all 15 cases. He might have won several in a pre-trial motion and the rest at trial.

[Reader]

Originally Posted by jjenny

I am going by what cbs news article said. He litigated 15 cases and won them all.
"Trial lawyer Richard Hornsby has litigated 15 "Stand Your Ground" cases - none of them homicides - and won them all."
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-505263_1...ned/?tag=stack

I read that article also, but I believe him on his own record. Apparently they got some wrong information.

[nomoresorrow]

Originally Posted by Reader

The difference is that the one who feels they are being attacked do not have to retreat and it applies any place, not just a home, car, etc.:

(1) A person is presumed to have held a reasonable fear of imminent peril of death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another when using defensive force that is intended or likely to cause death or great bodily harm to another if:

(a) The person against whom the defensive force was used was in the process of unlawfully and forcefully entering, or had unlawfully and forcibly entered, a dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle, or if that person had removed or was attempting to remove another against that person’s will from the dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle; and

(b) The person who uses defensive force knew or had reason to believe that an unlawful and forcible entry or unlawful and forcible act was occurring or had occurred.

SYG:

(3) 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.

http://www.leg.state.fl.us/statutes/.../0776.013.html

Respectfully snipped from ^

SYG:

(3) 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.


And this is why everything will rest upon the substantiation and verification of GZ's injuries and the condition of Trayvon's body (per/the ME)! Everything!

[Karmady]

Originally Posted by Reader

The difference is that the one who feels they are being attacked do not have to retreat and it applies any place, not just a home, car, etc.:

(1) A person is presumed to have held a reasonable fear of imminent peril of death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another when using defensive force that is intended or likely to cause death or great bodily harm to another if:

(a) The person against whom the defensive force was used was in the process of unlawfully and forcefully entering, or had unlawfully and forcibly entered, a dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle, or if that person had removed or was attempting to remove another against that person’s will from the dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle; and

(b) The person who uses defensive force knew or had reason to believe that an unlawful and forcible entry or unlawful and forcible act was occurring or had occurred.

SYG:

(3) 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.

http://www.leg.state.fl.us/statutes/.../0776.013.html

Imo, you don't lose your right to assert SYG just because you lost the preliminary hearing. All that means is that you failed to meet a preponderence standard of self-defense at that time. The only question in my mind is where the burden lies at trial and what that burden is. Otherwise, Hornsby wouldn't be able to say, for example, that he has only won a couple of SYG motions to dismiss but still have won all of his SYG cases.

[jjenny]

Originally Posted by Reader

I read that article also, but I believe him on his own record. Apparently they got some wrong information.

He says he filed 15 pre-trial motions and won 2 or 3. It doesn't contradict cbs article because he could have then gone to trial and won the rest at trial. <modsnip>
So there is not contradiction as far as I can tell.

[Karmady]

Originally Posted by jjenny

And what he said about himself doesn't mean he didn't win all 15 cases. He might have won several in a pre-trial motion and the rest at trial.

That's it, exactly.

[Karmady]

Originally Posted by lauriej

--absolutely not.

--he wasn't arrested the night of the shooting b/c at the time SPD 'didn't have any evidence to dispute' george's SYG explanation---chief lee says that "prohibited" then from making an arrest, that night.

--following an investigation-----the SA found there was probable cause to arrest george, supported by the investigators affidavits.

--if he "wins" the SYG motion to dismiss hearing, it simply means he will be immune from further prosecution on the charge---not that his arrest was 'wrong' in the 1st place.

Imo, this is incorrect. That's what the preliminary hearing is for. And that's why the original prosecutor may have been reluctant to arrest him in the first place. jmoo

[Adrienne37]

Originally Posted by Reader

I read that article also, but I believe him on his own record. Apparently they got some wrong information.

Hi Reader - how many cases that Richard Hornsby tried under SYG were murder cases if you happen to know the answer to that?



~jmo~

[Reader]

Originally Posted by jjenny

I am going by what cbs news article said. He litigated 15 cases and won them all.
"Trial lawyer Richard Hornsby has litigated 15 "Stand Your Ground" cases - none of them homicides - and won them all."
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-505263_1...ned/?tag=stack

Originally Posted by Karmady

Here he's talking about the preliminary hearing (motion to dismiss), not the case overall.

Exactly, I think that's what was being referred to, just the SYG hearings that Mr. Hornsby has filed.

[jjenny]

Originally Posted by Reader

Exactly, I think that's what was being referred to, just the SYG hearings that Mr. Hornsby has filed.

I presume he filed 15 motions for hearings before trials. Two or three were granted and the case never went to trial. The rest presumably went to trial, and according to cbs he didn't lose a single case out of 15. So presumably some cases were won before trial (in a SYG hearing) and the rest at trial.

[francie]

Originally Posted by nomoresorrow

Respectfully snipped from ^

SYG:

(3) 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.


And this is why everything will rest upon the substantiation and verification of GZ's injuries and the condition of Trayvon's body (per/the ME)! Everything!

Exactly! That's why I think George is going to pass on having the SYG hearing, he has no medical records to present and the autopsy will show he shot Trayvon from a distance thus no struggle or SYG defense. AND his SYG testimony would be used against him at trial. all jmo.

[jjenny]

And how do you know any of that? Any links to autopsy showing TM was shot from a distance? Or that Zimmerman has no medical record to prove any sort of injury?

[Reader]

Originally Posted by Adrienne37

Hi Reader - how many cases that Richard Hornsby tried under SYG were murder cases if you happen to know the answer to that?



~jmo~

No, I just have that one interview so far and he does not say what kind of cases they were.

[jjenny]

Originally Posted by Adrienne37

Hi Reader - how many cases that Richard Hornsby tried under SYG were murder cases if you happen to know the answer to that?



~jmo~

According to cbs none were murders. But that would only make SYG harder to prove since the other side is alive and presumably able to tell their side of the story.

[octobermoon]

Originally Posted by mikeysmommom

You may accept it peacefully but JMO a lot will not.

Curious? do you know something we don't know? I haven't even heard if the bond hearing is for sure next week. Then there are hearings, pretrial motions, the SYG thingy, (which GZ may prevail) this will not be resolved until ??? years. I am guessing. But it isn't a sure thing that he will even come before a jury. A plea deal may be in the works. I dunno.

And yet you are ready to predict unpeaceful civil disobedience.

(LOL I wrote out that serious post and couldn't figure out a word to use for this = unpeaceful, oh heck I never burned my bra, wasn't old enough to wear one.)

[Velouria]

Originally Posted by AngelWings444

I think RH would know more about his own cases than CBS news.

No doubt his clients hope you are right.

[francie]

Originally Posted by jjenny

And how do you know any of that? Any links to autopsy showing TM was shot from a distance? Or that Zimmerman has no medical record to prove any sort of injury?

I said JMO to all of that, it's just what I 'think'.

[suepitzl]

This may be off topic, I do apologize. I just now am able to post as I forgot my password.......Anyway, as far as the supposed injuries to GZ (broken nose and blood on back of his head)..I think it is real possible that the broken nose could be from the gun kick and then when he realized he was bleeding from the nose he put his hand up to his nose/face and then placed his hand on the back of his head, thus leaving blood on the back of his head. JMO, KWIM?

[Karmady]

Originally Posted by csziggy

She was supoenaed by the GJ that didn't happen. She was interviewed by Corey's investigators. Radaronline has the stories, but I'm not sure that is an acceptable link - google it and you will find their stories.

Thanks. It's crossing my mind that the decision not to have a GJ may have something to do with the minor's testimony. I know it was put out there that AC never uses the GJ for cases like this, so I had just accepted that. But now I'm wondering whether the decision to charge murder 2 instead of manslaughter and not use the GJ for it may have been based on some issue with the gf. Like maybe her parents aren't wanting to put her through that. This way the charges are exclusively in AC's hands (murder 2 v. manslaughter), the girl doesn't have to testify at the GJ and AC still has all of her cards in hand to get a manslaughter plea and avoid the girl ever having to testify at all. Just a thought that crossed my mind....jmo, etc. I think it is key if AC had any input in issuing the supoena in the first place.