Whats your opinion on the florida shooting?

i've been following this case as well and alot of folks think that just because zim weighed 200 something pounds and trayvon was a 17 yo and didn't weigh as much that zimmerman couldn't have possibly feared for his life ...size like that don't mean squat tray was fit an in shape from being younger leaner and a football player ..if i was to bet which would win a fight without a gun i would place my money on the much leaner younger 17yo hands down he was taller and most likely more agile and brazen than the fatter stockier man imo
as far as zim being arrested for assaulting a cop don't mean squat either as i myself was arrested for allegedly assaulting a leo and the fact is i never assaulted that officer and he lied on his report to boot and the court only lowered it to misdemeanor rather than his felony charge which was still a crock of crap imo as the officer lied on his report but courts will believe a leo over a civilian in most cases where it just the civilian word against theirs so one can't really hold that over anyones head as we don't know the facts on that either
trayvon wasn't an angel either as the media tried to paint a picture of using a picture of him taken when he was about 12 yo strange how the media didn't print an updated pic of him sporting his tats and gold grill in his mouth depicting his thug wanna be attitude ..a more accurate picture of him ?on his facebook and tweets records was incriminating evidence of his punching a bus driver being suspended from school more than once and selling pot not to mention some racist comments and thug like demeanor he advertised and strange he had womens gold jewelry and a screwdriver in his book bag one day at school too?? although that is neither here in the case at hand and won't be admitted in court as to his demeanor and doesn't pertain to this case as to what went down behind those apts that day it seems to me tray may have punched zim to the ground and may very well been pounding his head on the ground as he claims they had some words a scuffle and zim shot him in self defense zims will prolly have to be on guard the rest of his life as the panthers and racist folks seem to want to avenge trayvons death from going through all that was said and done on both of these characters it seems to me perhaps zim was justified in shooting in self defense but that is just my opinion from reading into both their lives and i could be wrong
just my two cents on the matter for what it's worth
seems to me the media hyped up this case way out of portion using psy-ops to further divide the races and try and get the sheeples to willingly give up their gun rights or justify marshal law on our streets ..beware media charades
 
<snipped>
The lawyers among us can comment more intelligently than I on this, but 2nd Degree Murder strikes me as an over-charge. As I understand it, 2nd Degree requires premeditation to cause harm to another human being. <snipped>

Blues, can I assume that neither you nor I are attorneys? I am certainly not an attorney and would be ashamed if I were, but that is another subject for another day.

But maybe, between us (and all of the other level-headed realists here), we can figure-out something about the charges and upcoming proceedings. Let's first agree that Zimmerman was charged with 2nd Degree Murder. With THAT charge, could he be found guilty of what is known as "lesser included charges"? For example, if a jury could not reach a unanimous verdict on 2nd Degree Murder, could they (do they have the authority) to find him guilty of Manslaughter? Or does he also need to be charged with Manslaughter?

Form what we (collectively) know about this case, a conviction of 2nd Degree Murder seems extremely unlikely to me. I may be missing something - some key piece of evidence - but from what I know (as PROPERLY vetted), I don't think the prosecution can prove the charge.

So are they (the prosecution) hoping to "look good" in bringing the highest charge they could bring? (As an aside, a prosecutor cannot, without a Grand Jury, bring Capital Murder charges - they must use a Grand Jury for that one.) Let's suppose that the prosecutor knows that their case against Zimmerman is tenuous. So she files for 2nd Degree Murder to appease the masses (a politically-driven action) and has thus "punted the ball" to the court. If she fails in getting a conviction for 2nd Degree Murder, she can always say, "I tried".

Does this make sense? Am I too suspicious of the judicial system?

For all of you - not just Blues - what are your thoughts on this? Do any of you know the Florida law well enough to answer the original question about "lesser included charges"?

As a result of my research, I am of the opinion that the "lesser included charges" must be brought at the same time the main charge is brought. Then, the jury has the ability to convict on one of the lesser included charges such as assault, illegal discharge of a firearm, or whatever. But does anyone know if Zimmerman was charged with a SINGLE charge of 2nd Degree Murder and NOT any other charges? (As a caveat, the complaint could be amended to include other charges...)

I'm not fishing here - I am really interested in learning something about Florida's legal system and the likely process we are going to see unfold in the coming weeks and months.

I'm actually glad that Zimmerman is in custody. At least he should be protected while in custody.
 
..... Let's first agree that Zimmerman was charged with 2nd Degree Murder. With THAT charge, could he be found guilty of what is known as "lesser included charges"? For example, if a jury could not reach a unanimous verdict on 2nd Degree Murder, could they (do they have the authority) to find him guilty of Manslaughter? Or does he also need to be charged with Manslaughter?
......
He can be found guilty of a lessor charge of Manslaughter without there needing for him to be charged with Manslaughter. That comes from the judge at the point that it is turned over to the jury. During the trial and up to the point of jury instruction, the PA can also lower the charges. A case can even go from 1st degree Murder down to 2nd and down to Manslaughter when it ends. Or the person can be found innocent depending on what the jury hears during the case. Once a jury hears the case, it is up to them although they cannot raise the charge.

For all of you - not just Blues - what are your thoughts on this? Do any of you know the Florida law well enough to answer the original question about "lesser included charges"?
Yes, as I've sat on a number of Criminal and Civil cases here. The 1st > 2nd > Manslaughter is from a case I sat on. Also have watched unfold a 1st Degree case get a change in plea to guilty and ask for the judge to decide on the punishment after a jury is impaneled from the jury box.
 
<Snipped>

Yes, as I've sat on a number of Criminal and Civil cases here. The 1st > 2nd > Manslaughter is from a case I sat on. Also have watched unfold a 1st Degree case get a change in plea to guilty and ask for the judge to decide on the punishment after a jury is impaneled from the jury box.

Thank you very much for the clarification. I've never been involved with a jury nor a criminal case, so I am completely in the dark about how those things work. I really appreciate the personal experience you've shared.

This place (USACarry) never ceases to amaze me. I am thankful that people from a wide variety of backgrounds are here, willing to share their life experiences for our benefit.

Thanks again.
 
My understanding is that an autopsy and drug screening were performed on Martin's body. It has been reported that the drug screen was negative (no drugs present). I'm sure it will come out in court whether or not that report is/was accurate.

Besides the English language, who (or what) have the Black Panthers "shown up to kill" and why would anyone just lay down and enjoy it?

ETA: The lawyers among us can comment more intelligently than I on this, but 2nd Degree Murder strikes me as an over-charge. As I understand it, 2nd Degree requires premeditation to cause harm to another human being. That's going to be tough to prove I would think. Zimmerman, like Martin, was on a trip to the store when he saw Martin. I understand that premeditation can happen right up to the last thought that goes through a shooter's mind before they pull the trigger, but calling the police hardly seems consistent with premeditation in this case. It'll be interesting to see what evidence the prosecution brings out that has yet to be made public.

Blues
1st Degree Murder takes premeditation. 2nd does not.
(2) The unlawful killing of a human being, when perpetrated by any act imminently dangerous to another and evincing a depraved mind regardless of human life, although without any premeditated design to effect the death of any particular individual, is murder in the second degree and constitutes a felony of the first degree, punishable by imprisonment for a term of years not exceeding life or as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084.
 
The next hurdle the prosecutor has, is getting past the pretrial hearing asking for immunity based on "Stand Your Ground". This may still not make it to trial unless this States Attorney has a lot more evidence than what is out there.
 
Thank you very much for the clarification. I've never been involved with a jury nor a criminal case, so I am completely in the dark about how those things work. I really appreciate the personal experience you've shared.

This place (USACarry) never ceases to amaze me. I am thankful that people from a wide variety of backgrounds are here, willing to share their life experiences for our benefit.

Thanks again.
My last felony jury trial as a juror was only 3 years ago. All the jurors in it except 1 had served on multiple juries in the past. Sometimes they go for the prosecution and sometimes they don't. That one didn't.
 
The next hurdle the prosecutor has, is getting past the pretrial hearing asking for immunity based on "Stand Your Ground". This may still not make it to trial unless this States Attorney has a lot more evidence than what is out there.
Correct. I do think that some evidence has been held back so far, but we will find that out at trial or hearing depending on how far it gets.
 
I am like some of you in that I think the prosecutor "punted" this one. First I think that she decided not to go to a grand jury as she didn't have enough to make a case and knew that unless he was arrested there was going to be big trouble. This way she can have him arrested and get off the hook of public opinion without having to make the case before a grand jury. As some others have said the 2nd degree murder is is high charge unless there is a LOT more to it than what has been put out there. That is going to be interesting. About the lesser charges I don't really know how that works but I do know the jury can't decide on their own for a lesser charge.

Does anyone know if GZ is now representing himself or have a court appointed lawyer or are the ones who were representing him back on the case? Since GZ's mother is Peruvian he might have some relatives in Peru and I don't know if I would not have gone to visit them for a while because it is going to be hard for him to get a fair trial in the US.
 
I am like some of you in that I think the prosecutor "punted" this one. First I think that she decided not to go to a grand jury as she didn't have enough to make a case and knew that unless he was arrested there was going to be big trouble. This way she can have him arrested and get off the hook of public opinion without having to make the case before a grand jury. As some others have said the 2nd degree murder is is high charge unless there is a LOT more to it than what has been put out there. That is going to be interesting. About the lesser charges I don't really know how that works but I do know the jury can't decide on their own for a lesser charge.

Does anyone know if GZ is now representing himself or have a court appointed lawyer or are the ones who were representing him back on the case? Since GZ's mother is Peruvian he might have some relatives in Peru and I don't know if I would not have gone to visit them for a while because it is going to be hard for him to get a fair trial in the US.

I would guess that you've never sat on a Florida murder case. A jury CAN lower the charges. It is part of the jury charge when it is turned over to them. Been there and done that. It also will lead to the jury being polled member by member if it is a unanimous vote.
 
The next hurdle the prosecutor has, is getting past the pretrial hearing asking for immunity based on "Stand Your Ground". This may still not make it to trial unless this States Attorney has a lot more evidence than what is out there.

Can you explain that for me? I'm not being smarmy - I just don't understand enough about legal proceedings enough to understand what you mean about a Preliminary Hearing asking for immunity. Who does the asking? Is it the defense counsel? Does Zimmerman have a new lawyer? And is the issue one of "stand your ground" or is it "self defense"? In my mind, the issue SHOUD be self-defense. I thought, perhaps incorrectly, that the "Stand Your Ground" law was written primarily to limit civil liability in the case of a self-defense shooting.

And at a pretrial hearing, who is present? Is it just the lawyers, the prosecutor and the judge? Are there witnesses or testimony? Or is it a rubber-stamp sort of thing? (In all honesty, I thought it was just a formality - a rubber stamp proceeding.)

Thanks in advance for any enlightenment.
 
@ FN1910 and Milshooter... Zimmerman has a new lawyer... Mark O'Mara.

On Stand Your Ground, it covers immunity for both criminal and civil action. I noted the law paragraphs a few pages back.


"776.032 Immunity from criminal prosecution and civil action for justifiable use of force.—

(1) A person who uses force as permitted in s. 776.012, s. 776.013, or s. 776.031 is justified in using such force and is immune from criminal prosecution and civil action for the use of such force, unless the person against whom force was used is a law enforcement officer, as defined in s. 943.10(14)"
 
Last edited:
Zimmerman has a new attorney. His name is Mark O'Mara. He held an impromptu press conference today that I happened to watch. Found it at YouTube. I didn't watch the whole YouTube vid, but I think it's the whole thing here. Nothing new covered, except that he was the first to officially confirm that Zimmerman had already turned himself in and was in custody.

Mark O'Mara Press Conference For Charges Against George Zimmerman - YouTube

I heard a lawyer's panel on Megyn Kelly's show today suggest the same thing that Bttbbob said, there will be a hearing to determine if SYG is applicable in this case. If the judge rules it applicable, it's over. If it goes the other way, clear the tracks, the Barnum & Baily Circus train is comin' into town, and it's got a head of steam pullin' it at full speed.

As I understand it, SYG is not the same as a pleading of self defense, because the SYG law has specific provisions for immunity from both criminal and civil prosecution. If Zimmerman is not protected under SYG, that doesn't preclude him from putting a self defense case forward, but it obviously does eliminate the protections of immunity. There may be other differences between the two defenses as well.

And no MilShooter, I am decidedly NOT a lawyer. I am, however, very interested in the law, especially in how its application comports and/or squares with my understanding of original intent of the Constitution. I believe this case is challenged on more than one constitutional issue. I don't believe a "fair" trial for Zimmerman is possible anywhere in this country at this point. I believe that the decision to charge him is more political than legal, though I acknowledge that there could be a boatload of evidence that the prosecutor has that we, the public, aren't privy to, and if that's true, my mind is definitely open to being changed on that score. I have not formed a firm opinion that Zimmerman was justified, but admit that I lean in that direction, but that's as much about my habit of maintaining a presumption of innocence until sufficiently proven beyond a reasonable doubt. As of yet, I have heard nothing but pure speculation to suggest that Zimmerman was aggressive in any way, yet to hear some around here, and nearly the entire lame-stream media tell it, Zimmerman was no less than a wanton vigilante, unquestionably guilty of confronting and being overly-aggressive with Martin. If that's true, I sincerely hope the prosecutor has the evidence to prove it and that Zimmerman spends the vast majority of the rest of his life in prison. If it's not true though, or can't be proven to a reasonable doubt, I fear political, racial and other anything-but-legal considerations will combine to convict him anyway. I don't have a lot of faith in the justice system to begin with, but in this environment? Guess it's safe to say I'm a full-blown cynic.

Blues
 
@ FN1910 and Milshooter... Zimmerman has a new lawyer... Mark O'Mara.

On Stand Your Ground, it covers immunity for both criminal and civil action. I noted the law paragraphs a few pages back.


"776.032 Immunity from criminal prosecution and civil action for justifiable use of force.—

(1) A person who uses force as permitted in s. 776.012, s. 776.013, or s. 776.031 is justified in using such force and is immune from criminal prosecution and civil action for the use of such force, unless the person against whom force was used is a law enforcement officer, as defined in s. 943.10(14)"
Why don't you quote the whole Chapter?
CHAPTER 776
JUSTIFIABLE USE OF FORCE
776.012 Use of force in defense of person.
776.013 Home protection; use of deadly force; presumption of fear of death or great bodily harm.
776.031 Use of force in defense of others.
776.032 Immunity from criminal prosecution and civil action for justifiable use of force.
776.041 Use of force by aggressor.
776.05 Law enforcement officers; use of force in making an arrest.
776.051 Use of force in resisting arrest or making an arrest or in the execution of a legal duty; prohibition.
776.06 Deadly force.
776.07 Use of force to prevent escape.
776.08 Forcible felony.
776.085 Defense to civil action for damages; party convicted of forcible or attempted forcible felony.
776.012 Use of force in defense of person.—A person is justified in using force, except deadly force, against another when and to the extent that the person reasonably believes that such conduct is necessary to defend himself or herself or another against the other’s imminent use of unlawful force. However, a person is justified in the use of deadly force and does not have a duty to retreat if:
(1) He or she reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the imminent commission of a forcible felony; or
(2) Under those circumstances permitted pursuant to s. 776.013.
History.—s. 13, ch. 74-383; s. 1188, ch. 97-102; s. 2, ch. 2005-27.
776.013 Home protection; use of deadly force; presumption of fear of death or great bodily harm.—
(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.
(2) The presumption set forth in subsection (1) does not apply if:
(a) The person against whom the defensive force is used has the right to be in or is a lawful resident of the dwelling, residence, or vehicle, such as an owner, lessee, or titleholder, and there is not an injunction for protection from domestic violence or a written pretrial supervision order of no contact against that person; or
(b) The person or persons sought to be removed is a child or grandchild, or is otherwise in the lawful custody or under the lawful guardianship of, the person against whom the defensive force is used; or
(c) The person who uses defensive force is engaged in an unlawful activity or is using the dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle to further an unlawful activity; or
(d) The person against whom the defensive force is used is a law enforcement officer, as defined in s. 943.10(14), who enters or attempts to enter a dwelling, residence, or vehicle in the performance of his or her official duties and the officer identified himself or herself in accordance with any applicable law or the person using force knew or reasonably should have known that the person entering or attempting to enter was a law enforcement officer.
(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.
(4) A person who unlawfully and by force enters or attempts to enter a person’s dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle is presumed to be doing so with the intent to commit an unlawful act involving force or violence.
(5) As used in this section, the term:
(a) “Dwelling” means a building or conveyance of any kind, including any attached porch, whether the building or conveyance is temporary or permanent, mobile or immobile, which has a roof over it, including a tent, and is designed to be occupied by people lodging therein at night.
(b) “Residence” means a dwelling in which a person resides either temporarily or permanently or is visiting as an invited guest.
(c) “Vehicle” means a conveyance of any kind, whether or not motorized, which is designed to transport people or property.
History.—s. 1, ch. 2005-27.
776.031 Use of force in defense of others.—A person is justified in the use of force, except deadly force, against another when and to the extent that the person reasonably believes that such conduct is necessary to prevent or terminate the other’s trespass on, or other tortious or criminal interference with, either real property other than a dwelling or personal property, lawfully in his or her possession or in the possession of another who is a member of his or her immediate family or household or of a person whose property he or she has a legal duty to protect. However, the person is justified in the use of deadly force only if he or she reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent the imminent commission of a forcible felony. A person does not have a duty to retreat if the person is in a place where he or she has a right to be.
History.—s. 13, ch. 74-383; s. 1189, ch. 97-102; s. 3, ch. 2005-27.
776.032 Immunity from criminal prosecution and civil action for justifiable use of force.—
(1) A person who uses force as permitted in s. 776.012, s. 776.013, or s. 776.031 is justified in using such force and is immune from criminal prosecution and civil action for the use of such force, unless the person against whom force was used is a law enforcement officer, as defined in s. 943.10(14), who was acting in the performance of his or her official duties and the officer identified himself or herself in accordance with any applicable law or the person using force knew or reasonably should have known that the person was a law enforcement officer. As used in this subsection, the term “criminal prosecution” includes arresting, detaining in custody, and charging or prosecuting the defendant.
(2) A law enforcement agency may use standard procedures for investigating the use of force as described in subsection (1), but the agency may not arrest the person for using force unless it determines that there is probable cause that the force that was used was unlawful.
(3) The court shall award reasonable attorney’s fees, court costs, compensation for loss of income, and all expenses incurred by the defendant in defense of any civil action brought by a plaintiff if the court finds that the defendant is immune from prosecution as provided in subsection (1).
History.—s. 4, ch. 2005-27.
776.041 Use of force by aggressor.—The justification described in the preceding sections of this chapter is not available to a person who:
(1) Is attempting to commit, committing, or escaping after the commission of, a forcible felony; or
(2) Initially provokes the use of force against himself or herself, unless:
(a) Such force is so great that the person reasonably believes that he or she is in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm and that he or she has exhausted every reasonable means to escape such danger other than the use of force which is likely to cause death or great bodily harm to the assailant; or
(b) In good faith, the person withdraws from physical contact with the assailant and indicates clearly to the assailant that he or she desires to withdraw and terminate the use of force, but the assailant continues or resumes the use of force.
History.—s. 13, ch. 74-383; s. 1190, ch. 97-102.
776.05 Law enforcement officers; use of force in making an arrest.—A law enforcement officer, or any person whom the officer has summoned or directed to assist him or her, need not retreat or desist from efforts to make a lawful arrest because of resistance or threatened resistance to the arrest. The officer is justified in the use of any force:
(1) Which he or she reasonably believes to be necessary to defend himself or herself or another from bodily harm while making the arrest;
(2) When necessarily committed in retaking felons who have escaped; or
(3) When necessarily committed in arresting felons fleeing from justice. However, this subsection shall not constitute a defense in any civil action for damages brought for the wrongful use of deadly force unless the use of deadly force was necessary to prevent the arrest from being defeated by such flight and, when feasible, some warning had been given, and:
(a) The officer reasonably believes that the fleeing felon poses a threat of death or serious physical harm to the officer or others; or
(b) The officer reasonably believes that the fleeing felon has committed a crime involving the infliction or threatened infliction of serious physical harm to another person.
History.—s. 13, ch. 74-383; s. 1, ch. 75-64; s. 1, ch. 87-147; s. 54, ch. 88-381; s. 1191, ch. 97-102.
776.051 Use of force in resisting arrest or making an arrest or in the execution of a legal duty; prohibition.—
(1) A person is not justified in the use of force to resist an arrest by a law enforcement officer, or to resist a law enforcement officer who is engaged in the execution of a legal duty, if the law enforcement officer was acting in good faith and he or she is known, or reasonably appears, to be a law enforcement officer.
(2) A law enforcement officer, or any person whom the officer has summoned or directed to assist him or her, is not justified in the use of force if the arrest or execution of a legal duty is unlawful and known by him or her to be unlawful.
History.—s. 13, ch. 74-383; s. 1192, ch. 97-102; s. 1, ch. 2008-67.
776.06 Deadly force.—
(1) The term “deadly force” means force that is likely to cause death or great bodily harm and includes, but is not limited to:
(a) The firing of a firearm in the direction of the person to be arrested, even though no intent exists to kill or inflict great bodily harm; and
(b) The firing of a firearm at a vehicle in which the person to be arrested is riding.
(2)(a) The term “deadly force” does not include the discharge of a firearm by a law enforcement officer or correctional officer during and within the scope of his or her official duties which is loaded with a less-lethal munition. As used in this subsection, the term “less-lethal munition” means a projectile that is designed to stun, temporarily incapacitate, or cause temporary discomfort to a person without penetrating the person’s body.
(b) A law enforcement officer or a correctional officer is not liable in any civil or criminal action arising out of the use of any less-lethal munition in good faith during and within the scope of his or her official duties.
History.—s. 13, ch. 74-383; s. 1, ch. 99-272.
776.07 Use of force to prevent escape.—
(1) A law enforcement officer or other person who has an arrested person in his or her custody is justified in the use of any force which he or she reasonably believes to be necessary to prevent the escape of the arrested person from custody.
(2) A correctional officer or other law enforcement officer is justified in the use of force, including deadly force, which he or she reasonably believes to be necessary to prevent the escape from a penal institution of a person whom the officer reasonably believes to be lawfully detained in such institution under sentence for an offense or awaiting trial or commitment for an offense.
History.—s. 13, ch. 74-383; s. 7, ch. 95-283; s. 1193, ch. 97-102.
776.08 Forcible felony.—“Forcible felony” means treason; murder; manslaughter; sexual battery; carjacking; home-invasion robbery; robbery; burglary; arson; kidnapping; aggravated assault; aggravated battery; aggravated stalking; aircraft piracy; unlawful throwing, placing, or discharging of a destructive device or bomb; and any other felony which involves the use or threat of physical force or violence against any individual.
History.—s. 13, ch. 74-383; s. 4, ch. 75-298; s. 289, ch. 79-400; s. 5, ch. 93-212; s. 10, ch. 95-195.
776.085 Defense to civil action for damages; party convicted of forcible or attempted forcible felony.—
(1) It shall be a defense to any action for damages for personal injury or wrongful death, or for injury to property, that such action arose from injury sustained by a participant during the commission or attempted commission of a forcible felony. The defense authorized by this section shall be established by evidence that the participant has been convicted of such forcible felony or attempted forcible felony, or by proof of the commission of such crime or attempted crime by a preponderance of the evidence.
(2) For the purposes of this section, the term “forcible felony” shall have the same meaning as in s. 776.08.
(3) Any civil action in which the defense recognized by this section is raised shall be stayed by the court on the motion of the civil defendant during the pendency of any criminal action which forms the basis for the defense, unless the court finds that a conviction in the criminal action would not form a valid defense under this section.
(4) In any civil action where a party prevails based on the defense created by this section:
(a) The losing party, if convicted of and incarcerated for the crime or attempted crime, shall, as determined by the court, lose any privileges provided by the correctional facility, including, but not limited to:
1. Canteen purchases;
2. Telephone access;
3. Outdoor exercise;
4. Use of the library; and
5. Visitation.
(b) The court shall award a reasonable attorney’s fee to be paid to the prevailing party in equal amounts by the losing party and the losing party’s attorney; however, the losing party’s attorney is not personally responsible if he or she has acted in good faith, based on the representations of his or her client. If the losing party is incarcerated for the crime or attempted crime and has insufficient assets to cover payment of the costs of the action and the award of fees pursuant to this paragraph, the party shall, as determined by the court, be required to pay by deduction from any payments the prisoner receives while incarcerated.
(c) If the losing party is incarcerated for the crime or attempted crime, the court shall issue a written order containing its findings and ruling pursuant to paragraphs (a) and (b) and shall direct that a certified copy be forwarded to the appropriate correctional institution or facility.
History.—s. 1, ch. 87-187; s. 72, ch. 96-388.
Civil actions are still possible against someone even if they are not charged or convicted. If the prosecution doesn't go forward, then a Civil action could. It would be in his best interest to have a not guilty ruling to help prevent a Civil trial.
 
I would guess that you've never sat on a Florida murder case. A jury CAN lower the charges. It is part of the jury charge when it is turned over to them. Been there and done that. It also will lead to the jury being polled member by member if it is a unanimous vote.

If it is part of the jury charge, yes but it the jury is only instructed on one charge they cannot lower it on their own. If they are deliberating on murder then they cannot decide to find him guilty of trespass instead. If they are given the options such as manslaughter they can do that.

I do have a question about FL law, are lesser charges always an option for a jury in this type of case? Can the prosecutor or defense ask that only the charge of 2nd degree be considered or does FL law require the option of lesser charge?
 
If it is part of the jury charge, yes but it the jury is only instructed on one charge they cannot lower it on their own. If they are deliberating on murder then they cannot decide to find him guilty of trespass instead. If they are given the options such as manslaughter they can do that.

I do have a question about FL law, are lesser charges always an option for a jury in this type of case? Can the prosecutor or defense ask that only the charge of 2nd degree be considered or does FL law require the option of lesser charge?
Florida law allows the jury to go with a lessor charge. If it is a 1st degree Murder charge, the jury can convict on 1st, 2nd, or Manslaughter or find innocent. The judge and the prosecutor cannot prevent the lessor charge being given. The lessor charge is always an option for the jury. Juries have also been able to decide that a law is unjust and refuse to convict. Judges hate that and will not include that in the jury instructions. After a trial, the judge may ask questions of the jury and the jury is free to make comments in court about the case after it is over. There also are followup questionnaires sent out at times on jury service to those who sat on a jury. The criminal justice system does attempt to learn from cases it gets.

In the case of the 1st degree Murder that I sat on about 30 years ago. By the time it got to the jury, the case had been lowered to 2nd degree murder. Our option was for 2nd or Manslaughter if convicting. As the person who was shot was a bullying drug dealer, the jury was close to letting the person go free for ridding the county of one more criminal. But the defendant was guilty of firing a gun in an occupied building and she did shoot him as he was going upstairs in the back. Self defense, no. Did she fear him, yes. That was why we couldn't convict her of the greater charge. At the time, the judge had the option of letting her out with time served while awaiting trial. The max she would have gotten was 15 years back then for that conviction. Now days, the max is 30 years if a gun is used for Manslaughter. Up to life for 2nd degree Murder.

And I end up on a jury trial about every 3-5 years since 1975.
 
It's your belligerent attitude that is the problem. "I've ignored or told someone to ---- off!" I get the impression that you think your some tough guy running around with a gun.

I"m not impressed by your certificates, and my skill and training have no bearing on this topic. And suffice it to say I'm not impressed. Just think you're a bully.


In a faceless medium where opinion is so cheap, Your writing on how you deal with people, offers some additional insight into the writer.



And then you did exactly what you accused me of. You want some authority to question my suitability to own a firearm becuase you disagree with my position of neutrality? Must I bow to your position? Are the CCW police coming to take my license away? Oh no!

What is a "NY" cop mentality? What type of NY cop? NY City? Some hick town up North? Specify where this comes from? Some study been done to show cops from NY all think alike. Does it stop at the state line or do you include Vermont and PA cops? Do I support all cops? Do you know me? Do you know what I teach?

How much self-defense training have you had? Where? Top training academy's? Ever been involved in a shooting? Anyone in the family been murdered? Are you talking from experience or just puffing that bird chest up and running your fingers? Owning a firearm qualifies you in no way to be an expert on self defense much the same as playing computer games doesn't qualify you as a software engineer. Also what rights to safety and security are your referring to under FL or federal statutes? You have a lot of questions to answer so get crackin'.

My job is to teach a skill-set, not a mind-set. I can provide the defensive skills but despite all my education I can't stop the ignorant from applying them poorly. But I CAN educate them on the aftermath of a real shooting. Something the shooter is learning the hard way.

Read my later post. I reserved judgement on this until the facts are known... something you might care to do. You have absolutely no idea what the facts of this case are.

Now go hump some one else's leg.
 
Why don't you quote the whole Chapter?
Civil actions are still possible against someone even if they are not charged or convicted. If the prosecution doesn't go forward, then a Civil action could. It would be in his best interest to have a not guilty ruling to help prevent a Civil trial.

Can you please highlight the section that says both civil and criminal immunity doesn't apply if the judge at the pre-trial hearing determines that SYG does apply? Simply quoting the whole Chapter is not a contradicting response to Fyrewerx' citation of the immunity clause.

Blues
 
@S&W645 ... I've reviewed the whole section, and still stand by my statement that IF THE JUDGE SAYS THAT SYG APPLIES, then the shooter is immune from criminal prosecution and civil action. I believe the rest of the section describes what would exempt the shooter from using SYG.
 
(1) A person who uses force as permitted in s. 776.012, s. 776.013, or s. 776.031 is justified in using such force and is immune from criminal prosecution and civil action for the use of such force, unless the person against whom force was used is a law enforcement officer, as defined in s. 943.10(14), who was acting in the performance of his or her official duties and the officer identified himself or herself in accordance with any applicable law or the person using force knew or reasonably should have known that the person was a law enforcement officer. As used in this subsection, the term “criminal prosecution” includes arresting, detaining in custody, and charging or prosecuting the defendant.

The highlighted parts are what will keep him out of jail if they have a hearing on immunity. If the judge buys it, its over. And if anyoen sues, Zimmerman will be able to collect legal fees if they do.
 

New Threads

Members online

No members online now.

Latest posts

Forum statistics

Threads
49,531
Messages
610,692
Members
75,032
Latest member
BLACKROCK6
Back
Top