Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Vigilante, stand your ground...murder

Collapse
This topic is closed.
X
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    Originally posted by user4 View Post

    "Stand your ground" may be attempted by the defense. ... it will go over like a frozen turkey with the judge and jury.
    That's what the parents of Trayvon Martin thought when he was stalked by a reject cop wannabe who had been warned by the police dispatcher to quit stalking Martin, and yet he's a free man today.

    Comment


    • #17
      Originally posted by jazzcyclist View Post
      That's what the parents of Trayvon Martin thought when he was stalked by a reject cop wannabe who had been warned by the police dispatcher to quit stalking Martin, and yet he's a free man today.
      I certainly dont want to go back and rehash that case here and there are reasons why the jury did what they did there. You may disagree, we all have disagreed with jury decisions.

      In this case there is a video and of course the jury has to be open to the explanations of the defense else they will be disqualified. [I recall just 18 months ago user4 had to sit on a jury and for a case of kidnapping and assault and the judge made sure that the jurors understood their role. So I had to go into it with an open mind]. Here the video in this case will be a very hard work around for the defense. They must do their best, that is their job, I understand how it works in the court room and everyone deserves representation but this video gives allot of information.
      Last edited by user4; 05-08-2020, 09:36 PM.

      Comment


      • #18
        Originally posted by user4 View Post

        I certainly dont want to go back and rehash that case here and there are reasons why the jury did what they did there. You may disagree, we all have disagreed with jury decisions.

        In this case there is a video and of course the jury has to be open to the explanations of the defense else they will be disqualified. [I recall just 18 months ago user4 had to sit on a jury and for a case of kidnapping and assault and the judge made sure that the jurors understood their role. So I had to go into it with an open mind]. Here the video in this case will be a very hard work around for the defense. They must do their best, that is their job, I understand how it works in the court room and everyone deserves representation but this video gives allot of information.
        Based on the known facts, the only difference between this case and the Trayvon Martin case is the existence of video. In both cases you had armed stalkers(s) out to harass someone minding his own business.

        Comment


        • #19
          Originally posted by jazzcyclist View Post
          Based on the known facts, the only difference between this case and the Trayvon Martin case is the existence of video. In both cases you had armed stalkers(s) out to harass someone minding his own business.
          Exactly.....

          Comment


          • #20
            Originally posted by jazzcyclist View Post
            Based on the known facts, the only difference between this case and the Trayvon Martin case is the existence of video. In both cases you had armed stalkers(s) out to harass someone minding his own business.
            The problem is that part of any defense could be to disallow the video, based on I don't know what, but I'm sure the defense attorneys will try that. If that occurs, then it becomes the murderers word against ... nobody, because they killed the guy. If the video is disallowed somehow, they could still walk.

            Comment


            • #21
              In both the Martin case and this case you have a connection to the "authorities", one a volunteer neighborhood watch and in this case a former investigator in the district where this killing took place. The defense will bring in
              policing experts who train police officers on the need to shoot first and ask questions later.
              The son's defense will be that if Ahmaud had wrestled the shotgun away during the struggle that he would have been shot even though his father with a 357? Handgun was there backing him up. Along with a third man.

              The video does not, I believe, give a full account of what was said during the encounter and the struggle.
              it doesn't take much imagination to believe that provocative words were exchanged.

              This case will not by any means be a sure conviction of murder in any degree.

              Sadly in America, with mass shootings and shootings so common, every situation is perceived to be headed for violence and the reaction of self-defense is seen as the only reasonable one.

              Comment


              • #22
                Originally posted by jeremyp View Post
                It reminds me of the case we had in Florida where a white guy was not charged because the police followed the "stand your ground" law.....until a video showed the guy shooting the victim in the back as he was walking away.
                That wasn't far from me. The video certainly helped the case get to an arrest. The sheriff, IIRC, was leaving it up to the DA to determine if it was a stand your ground case. Florida has had a number of these type of cases in which the person who ends up being the shooter essentially badgers or confronts the ultimate victim into a situation in which he defends himself and ends up being shot. The law in Florida is interpreted as some form of "as long as a person feels threatened he has a right to defend himself". The original writer of the law has stated that is never what was intended when he wrote the law. Cases such as the Zimmermann case, the still unresolved Curtis Reeves case, there have been other cases in Jacksonville and the first one which was in Brandon.

                The case in Georgia will ride, in addition to points made by others, on how the law has been interpreted and applied in the past. Since I've been absolutely amazed and disgusted by some of the decisions here in FL, my guess is that this is far from a slam dunk in Georgia even if they had a HD video from start to finish.

                The way some SYG laws are written and applied, if I go on the express line in the supermarket for less than 10 items and I have 11 items which has the guy behind me badger me on to the point in which I look angry at him and tell him to leave me alone, he can shoot me and invoke SYG and get away with it.
                Last edited by NotDutra5; 05-09-2020, 01:32 AM.

                Comment


                • #23
                  Originally posted by jazzcyclist View Post
                  Based on the known facts, the only difference between this case and the Trayvon Martin case is the existence of video. In both cases you had armed stalkers(s) out to harass someone minding his own business.
                  Not really, the facts that came out in the case against .. what's his name, ... The shooter of Martin , were sufficient to convince a jury that he was physically assaulted first . This is not what the video shows in this case.

                  the defense lawyer has to convince a jury that their client had a right to track and confront an unarmed man and when that man does not "cooperate" with them , they are justified to shoot him. These two are going to be found guilty of murder.
                  Last edited by user4; 05-09-2020, 02:26 AM.

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Originally posted by NotDutra5 View Post

                    That wasn't far from me. The video certainly helped the case get to an arrest. The sheriff, IIRC, was leaving it up to the DA to determine if it was a stand your ground case. Florida has had a number of these type of cases in which the person who ends up being the shooter essentially badgers or confronts the ultimate victim into a situation in which he defends himself and ends up being shot. The law in Florida is interpreted as some form of "as long as a person feels threatened he has a right to defend himself". The original writer of the law has stated that is never what was intended when he wrote the law. Cases such as the Zimmermann case, the still unresolved Curtis Reeves case, there have been other cases in Jacksonville and the first one which was in Brandon.

                    The case in Georgia will ride, in addition to points made by others, on how the law has been interpreted and applied in the past. Since I've been absolutely amazed and disgusted by some of the decisions here in FL, my guess is that this is far from a slam dunk in Georgia even if they had a HD video from start to finish.

                    The way some SYG laws are written and applied, if I go on the express line in the supermarket for less than 10 items and I have 11 items which has the guy behind me badger me on to the point in which I look angry at him and tell him to leave me alone, he can shoot me and invoke SYG and get away with it.

                    I believe the first Stand your ground law was in Florida in 2005? What was the original author's intention when he wrote this extremely poorly written law that could lead to it being interpreted to condone murder?





                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Originally posted by user4 View Post

                      Not really, the facts that came out in the case against .. what's his name, ... The shooter of Martin , were sufficient to convince a jury that he was physically assaulted first . This is not what the video shows in this case.

                      the defense lawyer has to convince a jury that their client had a right to track and confront an unarmed man and when that man does not "cooperate" with them , they are justified to shoot him. These two are going to be found guilty of murder.
                      the video could be read as the man with the shotgun was attacked by Ahmaud (since he turned and ran at the gunman) and then attacker was trying to take the gun away, which the NRA attorneys will tesify can not be allowed ever, and thus it was the shooter's constitutional right to shot Ahmaud.

                      miscarriages of justice is the price we pay for misinterpreting our laws. And, yes, the US Supreme Court is not infallible and has made errors.



                      Comment


                      • #26
                        As far as most of the world is concerned, the "Stand Your Ground" defence was enacted to allow whites to murder blacks with impunity.

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Originally posted by Tuariki View Post
                          As far as most of the world is concerned, the "Stand Your Ground" defence was enacted to allow whites to murder blacks with impunity.
                          Im pretty sure no black man has ever successfully used that as a defense.

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            Originally posted by DJG View Post


                            I believe the first Stand your ground law was in Florida in 2005? What was the original author's intention when he wrote this extremely poorly written law that could lead to it being interpreted to condone murder?

                            Originally, IIRC, the law was written so that one could forcibly protect themselves away from their place of residence (meaning virtually inside their place of residence).

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              Originally posted by DJG View Post
                              the video could be read as the man with the shotgun was attacked by Ahmaud (since he turned and ran at the gunman) and then attacker was trying to take the gun away, which the NRA attorneys will tesify can not be allowed ever, and thus it was the shooter's constitutional right to shot Ahmaud.

                              miscarriages of justice is the price we pay for misinterpreting our laws. And, yes, the US Supreme Court is not infallible and has made errors.
                              i interpret that video as a man being unlawfully confronted by armed men. I realize that Ahmaud reacted in an unwise manner but his reaction was not on their property, he was not committing a crime , he was on a public road, they had no business bothering him.

                              For that reason I am certain that the prosecutors will make clear that he had every right to " stand his ground" and defend himself.

                              regarding the murderers, When does a person have a right to take a loaded gun and confront an unarmed man on a public road ? Certainly not because a theft occurred a mile away. No the answer is almost never. The defense has an uphill climb. There are scenarios where a citizens arrest is vital and necessary, typically on the premises of a crime, not by armed men on a public way . If they wanted to arrest an unarmed man, they didn't need guns. These guys are going away.

                              I realize some people will see race in everything, but it is really irrelevant here.
                              Last edited by user4; 05-09-2020, 11:44 AM.

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                Originally posted by Tuariki View Post
                                As far as most of the world is concerned, the "Stand Your Ground" defence was enacted to allow whites to murder blacks with impunity.
                                Most of the world is probably uninformed about a great many issues in America. But I doubt they are that ill informed.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X