VeteranXX Contributor
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by SuperTrap
The nice thing is in about a week or so.. we will forget about this case and we will be pissed about something else
|
I've been pos repping you WAY too much lately.
If you could go back to being unhinged, it would fit with my dossier of you, and I won't have to revise my narrative. Thanks in advance.
|
|
|
VeteranX
|
Charges were brought so whatever the outcome, the State comes out clean. If he's convicted they justify the conviction by saying the jury has spoken. If he is not convicted the State says well sorry but the jury has spoken. Any lawsuit by the victims family against the State now has zero chance of success.
Only way he is convicted is if they stack the jury with blacks and white guilters.
|
|
|
VeteranXX
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Smiling Canadian
Charges were brought so whatever the outcome, the State comes out clean. If he's convicted they justify the conviction by saying the jury has spoken. If he is not convicted the State says well sorry but the jury has spoken. Any lawsuit by the victims family against the State now has zero chance of success.
Only way he is convicted is if they stack the jury with blacks and white guilters.
|
exact. same situation as trayvon
|
|
|
VeteranXX Contributor
|
They are going to have to break the law to convict him. Just sayin.
|
|
|
VeteranXX Contributor
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vanster
I've been pos repping you WAY too much lately.
If you could go back to being unhinged, it would fit with my dossier of you, and I won't have to revise my narrative. Thanks in advance.
|
Nice try. I would suggest I haven't change and it is more due to the fact that you can't rationalize your narrative any longer
|
|
|
VeteranXX Contributor
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by SuperTrap
They are going to have to break the law to convict him. Just sayin.
|
Hows that?
|
|
|
VeteranXX Contributor
|
Precedent.
|
|
|
VeteranXX Contributor
|
What precedent is that?
|
|
|
VeteranXX Contributor
|
Review stand your ground cases and the law.
Florida appeals court upholds 'Stand Your Ground' changes
Quote:
Shifting the burden of proof in 'Stand Your Ground" cases
The “stand your ground” law says people are justified in using deadly force and do not have a “duty to retreat” if they believe it is necessary to prevent death or great bodily harm. When the defense is successfully raised in pre-trial hearings, defendants are granted immunity from prosecution.
Before the change was passed last year, the Florida Supreme Court had said defendants had the burden of proof in pre-trial hearings to show they should be shielded from prosecution. With backing from groups such as the National Rifle Association, the 2017 change shifted the burden from defendants to prosecutors to prove whether self-defense claims are justified.
In Friday’s decision, the 3rd District Court of Appeal said the Legislature did not overstep its constitutional authority in shifting the burden of proof. It said lawmakers have “the constitutional authority to enact procedural provisions in statutes that are intertwined with substantive rights.”
“The amendment (to the “stand your ground” law in 2017) shifts the burden of proof to the prosecution after the defendant has made a prima facie claim of justified use of force, and it requires that the state (prosecutors) meet this burden of proof with clear and convincing evidence,” said the decision, written by appeal-court Judge Ivan Fernandez and joined by judges Thomas Logue and Edwin Scales. “This is consistent with the well-established legislative practice of passing statutes allocating the burden of proof in judicial proceedings.”
|
|
|
|
VeteranXX Contributor
|
Quote:
The amendment (to the ***8220;stand your ground***8221; law in 2017) shifts the burden of proof to the prosecution after the defendant has made a prima facie claim of justified use of force, and it requires that the state (prosecutors) meet this burden of proof with clear and convincing evidence
|
And if there wasn't a video available...you would be right. But there is a video and that video shows the "victim" taking 3 steps backwards, 1 more step as he turns and he was shot in the side as he's retreating. THAT is how state prosecuters will meet their burden of proof. He can't say he was in justifiable fear for his life if the attacker is retreating
|
|
|
VeteranXX Contributor
|
Sorry bro.. any lawyer will easily prove that vid is not enough to..
Quote:
After Friday***8217;s ruling, the burden will shift to prosecutors to show that he is not entitled to "stand your ground" immunity.
|
|
|
|
VeteranXX Contributor
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by SuperTrap
Sorry bro.. any lawyer will easily prove that vid is not enough to..
|
I wouldn't be so sure. Im in a bunch of gun groups for florida and there are some lawyers and leos in them. They are all saying SYG wont cover him. I don't think it will either
|
|
|
VeteranXX Contributor
|
See.. you still have this to overcome also
The vid is not enough
It is not "clear and evident" as to what the shooter felt or perceived.
Weight is therefore given to the shooter and he walks
|
|
|
VeteranXX Contributor
|
Precedent
Five ‘Stand Your Ground’ Cases You Should Know About — ProPublica
Quote:
But as a recent Tampa Bay Times investigation indicates, the Martin incident is far from the only example of the law’s reach in Florida. The paper identified nearly 200 instances since 2005 where the state’s Stand Your Ground law has played a factor in prosecutors’ decisions, jury acquittals or a judge’s call to throw out the charges. (Not all the cases involved killings. Some involved assaults where the person didn’t die.)
The law removes a person’s duty to retreat before using deadly force against another in any place he has the legal right to be – so long as he reasonably believed he or someone else faced imminent death or great bodily harm. Among the Stand Your Ground cases identified by the paper, defendants went free nearly 70 percent of the time.
|
Quote:
Although Florida was the first to enact a Stand Your Ground law, 24 other states enforce similar versions. Using the Tampa Bay findings and others, we’ve highlighted some of the most notable cases where a version of the Stand Your Ground law has led to freedom from criminal prosecution:
|
Quote:
In November 2007, a Houston-area man pulled out a shotgun and killed two men whom he suspected of burglarizing his neighbor’s home. Joe Horn, a 61-year-old retiree, called 911 and urged the operator to “ ‘Catch these guys, will you? Cause, I ain’t going to let them go.’ ” Despite being warned to remain inside his home, Horn stated he would shoot, telling the operator, “ ‘I have a right to protect myself too, sir. The laws have been changed in this country since September the first, and you know it.’ ”
Two months earlier, the Texas Legislature passed a Stand Your Ground law removing a citizen’s duty to retreat while in public places before using deadly force. In July 2008, a Harris County grand jury declined to indict Horn of any criminal charges.
· In Louisiana early this year, a grand jury cleared 21-year-old Byron Thomas after he fired into an SUV filled with teenagers after an alleged marijuana transaction went sour. One of the bullets struck and killed 15-year-old Jamonta Miles. Although the SUV was allegedly driving away when Thomas opened fire, Lafourche Parish Sheriff Craig Webre said to local media that as far as Thomas knew, someone could have jumped out of the vehicle with a gun. Thomas, said the sheriff, had “decided to stand his ground.”
Louisiana’s Stand Your Ground law was enacted just a year after Florida introduced its law.
· In March 2012, Bo Morrison was shot and killed by a homeowner in Wisconsin who discovered the unarmed 20-year-old on his porch early one morning. According to friends, Morrison was trying to evade police responding to a noise complaint at a neighboring underage drinking party. The homeowner, thinking Morrison was a burglar, was not charged by the local district attorney.
While Wisconsin doesn’t have a Stand Your Ground law that extends to public spaces, Gov. Scott Walker signed an “intruders bill” in December 2011 that presumes somebody who uses deadly force against a trespasser in their home, business or vehicle acted reasonably, whether or not the intruder was armed. Before the law was enacted, homeowners could only use deadly force if their own lives were at risk.
· In April, 22-year-old Cordell Jude shot and killed Daniel Adkins Jr., a pedestrian who walked in front of Jude’s car just as Jude was pulling up to the window of a Taco Bell drive-thru in Arizona. Jude claimed Adkins had waved his arms in the air, wielding what Judge thought was a metal pipe – it was actually a dog leash. Jude shot the 29-year-old Adkins, who was mentally disabled, once in the chest. As of May, an arrest had not been made in the April 3 shooting. Arizona passed a Stand Your Ground law in 2010.
· In January, a judge in Miami tossed out a second-degree murder charge against Greyston Garcia after he chased a suspected burglar for more than a block and stabbed him to death. The judge decided the stabbing was justified because the burglar had swung a bag of stolen car radios at Garcia – an object that a medical examiner at a hearing testified could cause “serious harm or death.” The judge found Garcia was “well within his rights to pursue the victim and demand the return of his property.”
|
They walked. He will walk
|
|
|
VeteranXX Contributor
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by SuperTrap
See.. you still have this to overcome also
The vid is not enough
It is not "clear and evident" as to what the shooter felt or perceived.
Weight is therefore given to the shooter and he walks
|
Not even the same scenario. The guy that got shot was reaching for his waist (according to the shooter) but more importantly, there isn't anyone to argue for the guy that got shot.
In this case, there is the video. Florida statute 776.012***8195;deals with the use of deadly force
Quote:
A person is justified in using or threatening to use deadly force if he or she reasonably believes that using or threatening to use 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. A person who uses or threatens to use deadly force in accordance with this subsection does not have a duty to retreat and has the right to stand his or her ground if the person using or threatening to use the deadly force is not engaged in a criminal activity and is in a place where he or she has a right to be.
|
Thats been the big ***** with the SYG laws is that because of the above paragraph, people can basically shoot someone and say they feared for their life, like in the case of Trayvon Martin. There were no witnesses, and Martin couldn't argue the point ,he's dead, so zimmerman can claim that he feared for his life and nobody can say different.
But here...there is video. So now a judge is going to look at this and determine if he had a legitimate reason to fear for his life or fear imminent bodily harm and he's going to see a guy that took a total of 4 steps in retreat and was turning away when he was shot.
If dude would have just pulled his gun for instance, he wouldn't have been charged with brandishing because he had been knocked down. But the moment the attacker starts backing up, he is no longer a threat, SYG doesn't apply
|
|
|
VeteranXV
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by SuperTrap
Sorry bro.. any lawyer will easily prove that vid is not enough to..
|
why are you assuming the video is the only evidence? there were eyewitnesses. a judge apparently felt there was enough evidence to issue a warrant, so he was arrested. that of course does not imply guilt, but nor does the video imply innocence.
|
|
|
VeteranXX Contributor
|
they didn't have video...he does. Thats the catch in this case
|
|
|
VeteranXX Contributor
|
All the video documents is an assault. By definition, SYG covers him
|
|
|
Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
|
|
Posting Rules
|
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
HTML code is Off
|
|
|
AGENT: claudebot / Y
All times are GMT -4. The time now is 06:20.
|