Trayvon Martin, Vigilante Justice - Page 228

crimresearch · 6th May 2012, 07:59 AM

Originally Posted by Cylinder

I'm not certain I follow your meaning here. The state has to provide a prima facie claim in an affidavit to support arrest. That is, they have to claim each element of the crime. What is the "depraved indifference" element in the Zimmerman affidavit? Each element also has to be attributed as to what probable cause exists for that element.

The prosecutor could claim that the act of shooting in a dense residential area was a depraved act, but then the affiant has to deal with the self-defense claim. The standard is very low and a matter of fact (therefore subjective to the magistrate) but it's not thin in this regard - it's non-existent.

I am lost. The quote provided was the jury instruction for the definition of depraved mind. The act must be proven, BARD, to demonstrate "ill will, hatred, spite, or an evil intent." I'm missing that element.

In the interest of deja vu all over again:
All a PC statement requires is 'any information, observation, or set of circumstances that would lead a reasonable person to believe that a crime has been, is being, or will be committed'.

Prima facie means obviously sufficient to prove guilt (unless rebutted), and it simply is not the case that the investigators must prove every element of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt, merely for a PC statement. And they certainly don't have to prove it in front of a jury, just to make an arrest.

The prosecution will need to meet that burden later, and the jury instructions come in just before deliberations, not at pretrial hearings.

http://dictionary.law.com/Default.aspx?selected=1618

Cylinder · 6th May 2012, 08:03 AM

Originally Posted by Dan O.

Your CCW instructor is an *******. http://www.kare11.com/news/article/9...ed-and-charged

Arkansas still has a duty to retreat in the statutes but does have a kind of commom law Castle Doctrine, so individual milage may vary. I'm guessing the decision to fire the warning shot didn't work to her favor at trial - but that's my guess.

crimresearch · 6th May 2012, 08:04 AM

Originally Posted by Dan O.

Where is this meme comming from and why is it being accepted without evidence?

The meme is coming from an over-rejection of the old meme (halthalthaltorillshootBANG!) which was shot down by the Garner ruling.

crimresearch · 6th May 2012, 08:10 AM

Originally Posted by Cylinder

Arkansas still has a duty to retreat in the statutes but does have a kind of commom law Castle Doctrine, so individual milage may vary. I'm guessing the decision to fire the warning shot didn't work to her favor at trial - but that's my guess.

http://selfdefenseark.com/arlaw.htm

Arkansas like many 'duty to retreat' states, has the caveat "in complete safety" before the retreat factor kicks in.

In most situations, it would seem pretty hard to have been completely safe in turning one's back on an attacker.
(And even then it doesn't apply in your home).

Dan O. · 6th May 2012, 08:15 AM

Originally Posted by Rare Truth

I don't see how your link correlates.

Cylinder's post said "every time". I provided a single counter example in which the prosecutor was not bringing charges against the shop owner who fired a warning shot thus proving that there are exceptions.

Even the existence of the term Warning Shot^WP shows that it had once been an accepted practice.

WildCat · 6th May 2012, 08:19 AM

Originally Posted by Dan O.

Cylinder's post said "every time". I provided a single counter example in which the prosecutor was not bringing charges against the shop owner who fired a warning shot thus proving that there are exceptions.

Even the existence of the term Warning Shot^WP shows that it had once been an accepted practice.

The problem with warning shots is that the bullet has to go somewhere, and just firing one can be used to show reckless disregard for the safety of others.

crimresearch · 6th May 2012, 08:22 AM

Originally Posted by Dan O.

Cylinder's post said "every time". I provided a single counter example in which the prosecutor was not bringing charges against the shop owner who fired a warning shot thus proving that there are exceptions.

Even the existence of the term Warning Shot^WP shows that it had once been an accepted practice.

So then you knew the answer to your own question, when you asked where it came from.

Dan O. · 6th May 2012, 08:27 AM

Originally Posted by crimresearch

The meme is coming from an over-rejection of the old meme (halthalthaltorillshootBANG!) which was shot down by the Garner ruling.

This Garner? That was a warning followed by a shot. Perhaps you are thinking of a different Garner that involved a warning shot.

marplots · 6th May 2012, 08:31 AM

Something that's bothered my from the beginning of this case:

The family cries that they "just want the police to arrest him."
But I saw footage from that night that shows GZ getting out of a police car at police headquarters. He's in handcuffs. How is this not "under arrest?"

Cylinder · 6th May 2012, 08:31 AM

Originally Posted by crimresearch

In the interest of deja vu all over again:
All a PC statement requires is 'any information, observation, or set of circumstances that would lead a reasonable person to believe that a crime has been, is being, or will be committed'.

Yup - it's a very low and very subjective standard.

Originally Posted by crimresearch

Prima facie means obviously sufficient to prove guilt (unless rebutted)

Right again. You do agree that the state has to make a prima facie claim for every element of whatever crime that is alledged in a probable cause affidavit, right?

Originally Posted by crimresearch

...and it simply is not the case that the investigators must prove every element of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt, merely for a PC statement. And they certainly don't have to prove it in front of a jury, just to make an arrest.

Yea, that part was just a function of multitasking. I got a little off track there. The state has an ethical responsibility to only charge that for which they have a BARD belief.

Originally Posted by crimresearch

The prosecution will need to meet that burden later, and the jury instructions come in just before deliberations, not at pretrial hearings.

A jury instruction is just the court's information about the law to the jury, since they are not presumed to have legal training. The judge uses the same standard as the jury instruction, since it was drawn from statute and precedent.

As I stated before, I'm having trouble working out the depraved mind element with the four corners of the pc affidavit. What element demonstartes "ill will, hatred, spite, or an evil intent?"

Dancing David · 6th May 2012, 08:34 AM

Originally Posted by Dan O.

Your friend's father is an idiot.

Thanks Dan, so you want to discuss the merits of the use of the word pointed vs. aiming and/or purposefully directing the end of the barrel towards an object.

Please. The man was born in 1922, so why should we argue semantics. And he is a dead idiot.

Cylinder · 6th May 2012, 08:35 AM

Originally Posted by marplots

Something that's bothered my from the beginning of this case:

The family cries that they "just want the police to arrest him."
But I saw footage from that night that shows GZ getting out of a police car at police headquarters. He's in handcuffs. How is this not "under arrest?"

Zimmerman wasn't arrested. He was detained at the scene and went with police for a voluntary statement, presumably.

Dancing David · 6th May 2012, 08:36 AM

Originally Posted by marplots

Something that's bothered my from the beginning of this case:

The family cries that they "just want the police to arrest him."
But I saw footage from that night that shows GZ getting out of a police car at police headquarters. He's in handcuffs. How is this not "under arrest?"

This was covered early on, 'taken into detention for questioning' is not the same as 'arrested'.

Dan O. · 6th May 2012, 08:37 AM

Originally Posted by crimresearch

So then you knew the answer to your own question, when you asked where it came from.

Perhaps you aren't following. Of course I knew where "warning shot" came from. I was asking where this rule from CCW instructors was coming from. Why has it become a crime to fire a warning shot in situations where deadly force is authorized?

Cylinder · 6th May 2012, 08:38 AM

Originally Posted by WildCat

The problem with warning shots is that the bullet has to go somewhere, and just firing one can be used to show reckless disregard for the safety of others.

Right, that's the flipside. You've done something that is easy to show that is dangerous and presented evidence that the threat wasn't immediate in the same stroke.

There's also a very strong tactical argument against warning shots as well.

marplots · 6th May 2012, 08:43 AM

Originally Posted by Dancing David

This was covered early on, 'taken into detention for questioning' is not the same as 'arrested'.

I see. It is a nuance in terms I wasn't familiar with. I only had the two categories -- under arrest and free to leave. Is the distinguishing feature whether or not you are booked? And if GZ hadn't been cooperative, would he have been officially arrested?

My understanding was that "detained" only counted at the scene of the crime. So, for example, if you are pulled over in a traffic stop, you can be detained while the officer checks you out, but if you are transported to the cop shop, that's an arrest.

And I know this is bad form if it's been covered, but after 200+ pages, maybe it needs a short rehash.

Dan O. · 6th May 2012, 08:49 AM

Originally Posted by Dancing David

Thanks Dan, so you want to discuss the merits of the use of the word pointed vs. aiming and/or purposefully directing the end of the barrel towards an object.

Please. The man was born in 1922, so why should we argue semantics. And he is a dead idiot.

I highlighted the word "loaded". A non idiot instructor would not make such a distinction.

Cylinder · 6th May 2012, 08:53 AM

Originally Posted by Dan O.

Perhaps you aren't following. Of course I knew where "warning shot" came from. I was asking where this rule from CCW instructors was coming from. Why has it become a crime to fire a warning shot in situations where deadly force is authorized?

Because the warning shot itself can be used as evidence that there was no justification (i.e. the threat was not immediate.)

Cylinder · 6th May 2012, 09:13 AM

Originally Posted by Dan O.

Where is this meme comming from and why is it being accepted without evidence?

http://www.avvo.com/legal-guides/ugc...g-self-defense

What the author fails to mention is the immediacy challenge.

https://www.usconcealedcarry.com/ccm...warning-shots/

This speaks directly to the immediacy challenge.

If you want more cites I will be happy to provide them later.

kedo1981 · 6th May 2012, 09:19 AM

Again, those who are actually trained in the use of firearms are trained to only fire with intent of deadly force.
Those who live in a Hawaii five-o wing him Dan o fantasy should perhaps take the opportunity to read up on it.

Dan O. · 6th May 2012, 09:47 AM

Originally Posted by Cylinder

Because the warning shot itself can be used as evidence that there was no justification (i.e. the threat was not immediate.)

Where in the law does it say "immediate"?

Cylinder · 6th May 2012, 10:30 AM

Originally Posted by Dan O.

Where in the law does it say "immediate"?

Arizona 13-418 "imminent peril"

Florida 776.012 "imminent use of unlawful force"

Illinois 720 5/7-1 "imminent death"

Kentucky 503.080 "immediately neccessary"

North Carolina 14.51.3 "imminent death"

Natural Born Skeptic · 6th May 2012, 10:42 AM

Originally Posted by Cylinder

Because the warning shot itself can be used as evidence that there was no justification (i.e. the threat was not immediate.)

So if I have a guy covered in blood with machete in one hand and a human head in the other hand, and he's about 20' from me and says "your next", and I fire a warning shot, that's proof there was no immediate threat of harm? OK, got it.

Are you guys just stating the law here? Or are you seriously suggesting there are no situations in which a person firing a warning shot could ever be under a threat of immediate harm???

Newtons Bit · 6th May 2012, 10:43 AM

Originally Posted by Dan O.

Your friend's father is an idiot.

I assume you are referring to the fact that basic gun safety tells you that "all guns are always loaded"?

Natural Born Skeptic · 6th May 2012, 10:52 AM

Originally Posted by Cylinder

The facts surrounding the conviction of Marisaa Alexander are a bit troubling to me as well.

A bit troubling? No kidding. Reading this makes me want to throw up. Here's a women who's already on one occasion been beaten to within an inch or her life, her husband has just tried to strangle her and told her he's going to kill her, and she fires a warning shot and is going to go to jail for 20 years?

And guess who is prosecuting this insanity and wants to send her to jail for 20 years? Why good old Ms. Cory! Unless this article is seriously twisting the facts, this women should be paying a fine and doing a little community service.

http://www.cnn.com/2012/04/24/justic...law/index.html

Dan O. · 6th May 2012, 10:58 AM

Originally Posted by Cylinder

Florida 776.012 "imminent use of unlawful force"

Kentucky 503.080 "immediately neccessary"

Do you notice a difference between those words?

Bikewer · 6th May 2012, 11:05 AM

Police agencies have universally prohibited the use of "warning shots". This primarily because of the danger to bystanders. Also, (I was around when such were allowed) they were surprisingly ineffective.
Suspects fleeing from the police (yes, we could shoot at them too, back in the day) would generally just flee faster, and drug-addled or intoxicated individuals often did not even register that a shot had been fired.

On the other hand, I am not familiar with most states placing such strictures on civilians. I have never heard of anyone being prosecuted for firing a warning shot, though should someone else be harmed or killed the shooter would certainly be held liable.

Dan O. · 6th May 2012, 11:17 AM

Originally Posted by Newtons Bit

I assume you are referring to the fact that basic gun safety tells you that "all guns are always loaded"?

Exactly. That's what my father taught me.

Dan O. · 6th May 2012, 11:51 AM

Originally Posted by Bikewer

On the other hand, I am not familiar with most states placing such strictures on civilians. I have never heard of anyone being prosecuted for firing a warning shot, though should someone else be harmed or killed the shooter would certainly be held liable.

As recent as 2002, the Missouri state supreme court commented in a case about the lack of a warning shot being fired. But there have been more recent prosecutions in several states where a warning shot was successfully used to stop a crime in progress. I found the one exception where the shop owner was not prosecuted and there the news article was questioning why not. Is there some ajenda being pushed to force gun owners to rack up more kills.

crimresearch · 6th May 2012, 12:01 PM

Originally Posted by Cylinder

Arizona 13-418 "imminent peril"

Florida 776.012 "imminent use of unlawful force"

Illinois 720 5/7-1 "imminent death"

Kentucky 503.080 "immediately neccessary"

North Carolina 14.51.3 "imminent death"

And for all 50 states, in Garner, the US Supreme Court cites 'immediate' and imminent' danger as part of the standard for reasonable use of deadly force.

http://supreme.justia.com/cases/fede...71/1/case.html

Quote:

...a department must restrict the use of deadly force to situations where "the officer reasonably believes that the action is in defense of human life . . . or in defense of any person in immediate danger of serious physical injury."...

...Where the suspect poses no immediate threat to the officer and no threat to others, the harm resulting from failing to apprehend him does not justify the use of deadly force to do so.

Cylinder · 6th May 2012, 12:34 PM

Originally Posted by Natural Born Skeptic

So if I have a guy covered in blood with machete in one hand and a human head in the other hand, and he's about 20' from me and says "your next", and I fire a warning shot, that's proof there was no immediate threat of harm? OK, got it.

OK...you got me....

Take away the severed head and blood. You fire the warning shot. I advance and you fire the kill shot. Who initiated the use of force and how can a prosecutor make that look?

GWCarver · 6th May 2012, 01:49 PM

Originally Posted by OnlyTellsTruths

Good posts.

Also if Z lost that hearing he would, AFAIK, be open to a Civil Trial after the Criminal Trial, no matter the outcome of the Criminal Trial.

That is just one of the reasons I doubt Z's lawyers will ask for the immunity hearing. Another of which is that Z would have to take the stand at such a hearing.

First, let me say I have heard O'Mara describe SYG as "tricky" and he has had at least one SYG case, but it was settled with a plea. So, he is familiar with Florida's SYG law. However, at the time he made that statement he was new to the case. ( It is worth noting he was at much the same knowledge level of the prosecution's case as he is today, because then, just as now, he had not received discovery. That could explain his reluctance in interviews to embrace SYG or self-defense immunity. He doesn't know what the state has on his client.)

I can't disagree with your reasoning here, but it is Zimmerman's call if he wants to testify at the pretrial hearing, and he is the same person who wanted to talk to Corey directly. He clearly thinks he is innocent. IMO, O'Mara will really have to dig his heels in to keep Zimmerman from testifying in order to defend himself at the pretrial hearing. Of course, anything I say about this could look silly once discovery is made public.

I realize you weren't stating Zimmermnan's civil liability, if he is found not guilty after losing a self-defense hearing, as a fact, but I really would like to find out for certain if that is true. (I've looked, no luck yet) It would mean, effectively, that if the judge and jury disagree on his claim of self-defense, it makes him liable to civil suits even if the jury finds him not guilty of a homicide for which he has already admitted responsibility. I don't doubt that it could be true, I just think it is something the Florida lawmakers would have wanted to avoid. Because Zimmerman is not denying shooting and killing TM, a not-guilty verdict would have to mean the jury thought he acted in self-defense. In this hypothetical, the case wouldn't have reached the jury unless the judge thought a preponderance of the evidence showed it wasn't self-defense or SYG. But, they do call it an "immunity" hearing, so that could be the reason - the one chance for immunity.

Rare Truth · 6th May 2012, 02:07 PM

Originally Posted by GWCarver

First, let me say I have heard O'Mara describe SYG as "tricky" and he has had at least one SYG case, but it was settled with a plea. So, he is familiar with Florida's SYG law. However, at the time he made that statement he was new to the case. ( It is worth noting he was at much the same knowledge level of the prosecution's case as he is today, because then, just as now, he had not received discovery. That could explain his reluctance in interviews to embrace SYG or self-defense immunity. He doesn't know what the state has on his client.)

I can't disagree with your reasoning here, but it is Zimmerman's call if he wants to testify at the pretrial hearing, and he is the same person who wanted to talk to Corey directly. He clearly thinks he is innocent. IMO, O'Mara will really have to dig his heels in to keep Zimmerman from testifying in order to defend himself at the pretrial hearing. Of course, anything I say about this could look silly once discovery is made public.

....

In most cases, the defendant has to testify in pre-trial SYG defenses.

That's because only the defendant can state why he was in fear for his life in an immunity hearing.

Rare Truth · 6th May 2012, 02:08 PM

Here's an article that discusses it:
George Zimmerman Expected To Take The Stand In Trayvon Martin Murder Case

Quote:

(MSNBC)- If George Zimmerman, the killer of Trayvon Martin, wants to claim self-defense under Florida's "Stand Your Ground" law, he most certainly will have to testify, criminal defense attorneys in Florida told msnbc.com.

It is rare in criminal cases for defendants to be called to testify because they have a right against self-incrimination and it opens them up to sharp questions from prosecutors.

But Zimmerman, charged with second-degree murder in the fatal shooting of Martin during a scuffle in a gated Sanford, Fla., community on Feb. 26, will need to explain why he thought his life was in danger when he shot the unarmed black teenager, attorneys not involved with the case say.

Quote:

"There is no way around it," Derek Byrd, incoming president of the Florida Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers, told msnbc.com. "I personally believe he would have to testify. It's not like a case where there were three other witnesses. Who else is going to say he was fearing for his safety when he shot Trayvon Martin?

"http://www.kcentv.com/story/17409933...-observers-say

GWCarver · 6th May 2012, 02:36 PM

Originally Posted by Rare Truth

In most cases, the defendant has to testify in pre-trial SYG defenses.

That's because only the defendant can state why he was in fear for his life in an immunity hearing.

I agree, but Zimmerman will have a pretrial hearing which doesn't have to be SYG or self-defense, unless it is waived.

Dancing David · 6th May 2012, 03:05 PM

Originally Posted by Dan O.

Exactly. That's what my father taught me.

And apparently the idiocy is mine, it has been 15 years since that conversation, and I called down to southern Illinois the answer is "Don't point a gun at anything you don't want to blow a hole in."

So any idiocy was mine.

Rare Truth · 6th May 2012, 03:22 PM

Originally Posted by GWCarver

I agree, but Zimmerman will have a pretrial hearing which doesn't have to be SYG or self-defense, unless it is waived.

I may be wrong on this account, but I think the pre-trial hearing would be for the SYG immunity hearing.

If they don't go SYG defense, it's on to the full murder trial.

Anyone want to correct me if I'm wrong?

GWCarver · 6th May 2012, 04:01 PM

Originally Posted by Rare Truth

I may be wrong on this account, but I think the pre-trial hearing would be for the SYG immunity hearing.

If they don't go SYG defense, it's on to the full murder trial.

Anyone want to correct me if I'm wrong?

I'll tell you what, I've looked around and it appears that probable cause affidavit was actually an indictment. No wonder Dershowitz is going bonkers. I stand corrected. It seems no one anywhere is describing that document and press conference as an indictment. I thought it was simply something they slapped together to get an arrest.

Oh well, thanks for the correction. If anyone can corroborate this, please weigh-in.

ETA - I'm pretty sure there can be a pretrial hearing for either self-defense or SYG.

Rare Truth · 6th May 2012, 04:09 PM

Originally Posted by GWCarver

I'll tell you what, I've looked around and it appears that probable cause affidavit was actually an indictment.
... .

Congratulations Sherlock.
Indictment: "a formal accusation that a person has committed a crime."

GWCarver · 6th May 2012, 04:31 PM

Originally Posted by Rare Truth

Congratulations Sherlock.
Indictment: "a formal accusation that a person has committed a crime."

OK, if you want to play that way, you're on. BTW, I'm retracting my opinion that Zimmerman has been indicted. I'll be needing a citation to confirm your assertion that Zimmerman has been indicted.

6th May 2012, 07:59 AM	#9081
crimresearch Alumbrado Join Date: Jan 2004 Posts: 10,618	Originally Posted by Cylinder I'm not certain I follow your meaning here. The state has to provide a prima facie claim in an affidavit to support arrest. That is, they have to claim each element of the crime. What is the "depraved indifference" element in the Zimmerman affidavit? Each element also has to be attributed as to what probable cause exists for that element. The prosecutor could claim that the act of shooting in a dense residential area was a depraved act, but then the affiant has to deal with the self-defense claim. The standard is very low and a matter of fact (therefore subjective to the magistrate) but it's not thin in this regard - it's non-existent. I am lost. The quote provided was the jury instruction for the definition of depraved mind. The act must be proven, BARD, to demonstrate "ill will, hatred, spite, or an evil intent." I'm missing that element. In the interest of deja vu all over again: All a PC statement requires is 'any information, observation, or set of circumstances that would lead a reasonable person to believe that a crime has been, is being, or will be committed'. Prima facie means obviously sufficient to prove guilt (unless rebutted), and it simply is not the case that the investigators must prove every element of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt, merely for a PC statement. And they certainly don't have to prove it in front of a jury, just to make an arrest. The prosecution will need to meet that burden later, and the jury instructions come in just before deliberations, not at pretrial hearings. http://dictionary.law.com/Default.aspx?selected=1618
crimresearch Alumbrado Join Date: Jan 2004 Posts: 10,618

6th May 2012, 08:03 AM	#9082
Cylinder Illuminator Join Date: Jun 2005 Location: Arkansas Posts: 3,871	Originally Posted by Dan O. Your CCW instructor is an *******. http://www.kare11.com/news/article/9...ed-and-charged Arkansas still has a duty to retreat in the statutes but does have a kind of commom law Castle Doctrine, so individual milage may vary. I'm guessing the decision to fire the warning shot didn't work to her favor at trial - but that's my guess.
	__________________ If you will not fight for the right when you can easily win without bloodshed ; if you will not fight when your victory will be sure and not too costly; you may come to the moment when you will have to fight with all the odds against you and only a precarious chance of survival. There may even be a worse case. You may have to fight when there is no hope of victory, because it is better to perish than live as slaves. - Winston Churchill, The Gathering Storm

6th May 2012, 08:04 AM	#9083
crimresearch Alumbrado Join Date: Jan 2004 Posts: 10,618	Originally Posted by Dan O. Where is this meme comming from and why is it being accepted without evidence? The meme is coming from an over-rejection of the old meme (halthalthaltorillshootBANG!) which was shot down by the Garner ruling.
crimresearch Alumbrado Join Date: Jan 2004 Posts: 10,618

6th May 2012, 08:10 AM	#9084
crimresearch Alumbrado Join Date: Jan 2004 Posts: 10,618	Originally Posted by Cylinder Arkansas still has a duty to retreat in the statutes but does have a kind of commom law Castle Doctrine, so individual milage may vary. I'm guessing the decision to fire the warning shot didn't work to her favor at trial - but that's my guess. http://selfdefenseark.com/arlaw.htm Arkansas like many 'duty to retreat' states, has the caveat "in complete safety" before the retreat factor kicks in. In most situations, it would seem pretty hard to have been completely safe in turning one's back on an attacker. (And even then it doesn't apply in your home).
crimresearch Alumbrado Join Date: Jan 2004 Posts: 10,618

6th May 2012, 08:15 AM	#9085
Dan O. Philosopher Join Date: Feb 2007 Posts: 8,766	Originally Posted by Rare Truth I don't see how your link correlates. Cylinder's post said "every time". I provided a single counter example in which the prosecutor was not bringing charges against the shop owner who fired a warning shot thus proving that there are exceptions. Even the existence of the term Warning Shot^WP shows that it had once been an accepted practice.
Dan O. Philosopher Join Date: Feb 2007 Posts: 8,766	__________________ Permanent solution to national fiscal problems: Collect UNDIEs from dead rich people. (link)

6th May 2012, 08:19 AM	#9086
WildCat NWO Master Conspirator Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: Albany Park, Chicago Posts: 49,106	Originally Posted by Dan O. Cylinder's post said "every time". I provided a single counter example in which the prosecutor was not bringing charges against the shop owner who fired a warning shot thus proving that there are exceptions. Even the existence of the term Warning Shot^WP shows that it had once been an accepted practice. The problem with warning shots is that the bullet has to go somewhere, and just firing one can be used to show reckless disregard for the safety of others.

6th May 2012, 08:22 AM	#9087
crimresearch Alumbrado Join Date: Jan 2004 Posts: 10,618	Originally Posted by Dan O. Cylinder's post said "every time". I provided a single counter example in which the prosecutor was not bringing charges against the shop owner who fired a warning shot thus proving that there are exceptions. Even the existence of the term Warning Shot^WP shows that it had once been an accepted practice. So then you knew the answer to your own question, when you asked where it came from.
crimresearch Alumbrado Join Date: Jan 2004 Posts: 10,618

6th May 2012, 08:27 AM	#9088
Dan O. Philosopher Join Date: Feb 2007 Posts: 8,766	Originally Posted by crimresearch The meme is coming from an over-rejection of the old meme (halthalthaltorillshootBANG!) which was shot down by the Garner ruling. This Garner? That was a warning followed by a shot. Perhaps you are thinking of a different Garner that involved a warning shot.
Dan O. Philosopher Join Date: Feb 2007 Posts: 8,766	__________________ Permanent solution to national fiscal problems: Collect UNDIEs from dead rich people. (link)

6th May 2012, 08:31 AM	#9089
marplots Philosopher Join Date: Feb 2006 Posts: 5,416	Something that's bothered my from the beginning of this case: The family cries that they "just want the police to arrest him." But I saw footage from that night that shows GZ getting out of a police car at police headquarters. He's in handcuffs. How is this not "under arrest?"
marplots Philosopher Join Date: Feb 2006 Posts: 5,416

6th May 2012, 08:31 AM	#9090
Cylinder Illuminator Join Date: Jun 2005 Location: Arkansas Posts: 3,871	Originally Posted by crimresearch In the interest of deja vu all over again: All a PC statement requires is 'any information, observation, or set of circumstances that would lead a reasonable person to believe that a crime has been, is being, or will be committed'. Yup - it's a very low and very subjective standard. Originally Posted by crimresearch Prima facie means obviously sufficient to prove guilt (unless rebutted) Right again. You do agree that the state has to make a prima facie claim for every element of whatever crime that is alledged in a probable cause affidavit, right? Originally Posted by crimresearch ...and it simply is not the case that the investigators must prove every element of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt, merely for a PC statement. And they certainly don't have to prove it in front of a jury, just to make an arrest. Yea, that part was just a function of multitasking. I got a little off track there. The state has an ethical responsibility to only charge that for which they have a BARD belief. Originally Posted by crimresearch The prosecution will need to meet that burden later, and the jury instructions come in just before deliberations, not at pretrial hearings. A jury instruction is just the court's information about the law to the jury, since they are not presumed to have legal training. The judge uses the same standard as the jury instruction, since it was drawn from statute and precedent. As I stated before, I'm having trouble working out the depraved mind element with the four corners of the pc affidavit. What element demonstartes "ill will, hatred, spite, or an evil intent?"
	__________________ If you will not fight for the right when you can easily win without bloodshed ; if you will not fight when your victory will be sure and not too costly; you may come to the moment when you will have to fight with all the odds against you and only a precarious chance of survival. There may even be a worse case. You may have to fight when there is no hope of victory, because it is better to perish than live as slaves. - Winston Churchill, The Gathering Storm

6th May 2012, 08:34 AM	#9091
Dancing David Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: Central Illinois Posts: 34,727	Originally Posted by Dan O. Your friend's father is an idiot. Thanks Dan, so you want to discuss the merits of the use of the word pointed vs. aiming and/or purposefully directing the end of the barrel towards an object. Please. The man was born in 1922, so why should we argue semantics. And he is a dead idiot.
	__________________ Hell, dynamiting fish in a barrel is more challenging. - Ladewig I suspect you are a sandwich, metaphorically speaking. -Donn And a shot rang out. Now Space is doing time... -Ben Burch You built the toilet - don't complain when people crap in it. _Kid Eager

6th May 2012, 08:35 AM	#9092
Cylinder Illuminator Join Date: Jun 2005 Location: Arkansas Posts: 3,871	Originally Posted by marplots Something that's bothered my from the beginning of this case: The family cries that they "just want the police to arrest him." But I saw footage from that night that shows GZ getting out of a police car at police headquarters. He's in handcuffs. How is this not "under arrest?" Zimmerman wasn't arrested. He was detained at the scene and went with police for a voluntary statement, presumably.
	__________________ If you will not fight for the right when you can easily win without bloodshed ; if you will not fight when your victory will be sure and not too costly; you may come to the moment when you will have to fight with all the odds against you and only a precarious chance of survival. There may even be a worse case. You may have to fight when there is no hope of victory, because it is better to perish than live as slaves. - Winston Churchill, The Gathering Storm

6th May 2012, 08:36 AM	#9093
Dancing David Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: Central Illinois Posts: 34,727	Originally Posted by marplots Something that's bothered my from the beginning of this case: The family cries that they "just want the police to arrest him." But I saw footage from that night that shows GZ getting out of a police car at police headquarters. He's in handcuffs. How is this not "under arrest?" This was covered early on, 'taken into detention for questioning' is not the same as 'arrested'.
	__________________ Hell, dynamiting fish in a barrel is more challenging. - Ladewig I suspect you are a sandwich, metaphorically speaking. -Donn And a shot rang out. Now Space is doing time... -Ben Burch You built the toilet - don't complain when people crap in it. _Kid Eager

6th May 2012, 08:37 AM	#9094
Dan O. Philosopher Join Date: Feb 2007 Posts: 8,766	Originally Posted by crimresearch So then you knew the answer to your own question, when you asked where it came from. Perhaps you aren't following. Of course I knew where "warning shot" came from. I was asking where this rule from CCW instructors was coming from. Why has it become a crime to fire a warning shot in situations where deadly force is authorized?
Dan O. Philosopher Join Date: Feb 2007 Posts: 8,766	__________________ Permanent solution to national fiscal problems: Collect UNDIEs from dead rich people. (link)

6th May 2012, 08:38 AM	#9095
Cylinder Illuminator Join Date: Jun 2005 Location: Arkansas Posts: 3,871	Originally Posted by WildCat The problem with warning shots is that the bullet has to go somewhere, and just firing one can be used to show reckless disregard for the safety of others. Right, that's the flipside. You've done something that is easy to show that is dangerous and presented evidence that the threat wasn't immediate in the same stroke. There's also a very strong tactical argument against warning shots as well.
	__________________ If you will not fight for the right when you can easily win without bloodshed ; if you will not fight when your victory will be sure and not too costly; you may come to the moment when you will have to fight with all the odds against you and only a precarious chance of survival. There may even be a worse case. You may have to fight when there is no hope of victory, because it is better to perish than live as slaves. - Winston Churchill, The Gathering Storm

6th May 2012, 08:43 AM	#9096
marplots Philosopher Join Date: Feb 2006 Posts: 5,416	Originally Posted by Dancing David This was covered early on, 'taken into detention for questioning' is not the same as 'arrested'. I see. It is a nuance in terms I wasn't familiar with. I only had the two categories -- under arrest and free to leave. Is the distinguishing feature whether or not you are booked? And if GZ hadn't been cooperative, would he have been officially arrested? My understanding was that "detained" only counted at the scene of the crime. So, for example, if you are pulled over in a traffic stop, you can be detained while the officer checks you out, but if you are transported to the cop shop, that's an arrest. And I know this is bad form if it's been covered, but after 200+ pages, maybe it needs a short rehash.
marplots Philosopher Join Date: Feb 2006 Posts: 5,416

6th May 2012, 08:49 AM	#9097
Dan O. Philosopher Join Date: Feb 2007 Posts: 8,766	Originally Posted by Dancing David Thanks Dan, so you want to discuss the merits of the use of the word pointed vs. aiming and/or purposefully directing the end of the barrel towards an object. Please. The man was born in 1922, so why should we argue semantics. And he is a dead idiot. I highlighted the word "loaded". A non idiot instructor would not make such a distinction.
Dan O. Philosopher Join Date: Feb 2007 Posts: 8,766	__________________ Permanent solution to national fiscal problems: Collect UNDIEs from dead rich people. (link)

6th May 2012, 08:53 AM	#9098
Cylinder Illuminator Join Date: Jun 2005 Location: Arkansas Posts: 3,871	Originally Posted by Dan O. Perhaps you aren't following. Of course I knew where "warning shot" came from. I was asking where this rule from CCW instructors was coming from. Why has it become a crime to fire a warning shot in situations where deadly force is authorized? Because the warning shot itself can be used as evidence that there was no justification (i.e. the threat was not immediate.)
	__________________ If you will not fight for the right when you can easily win without bloodshed ; if you will not fight when your victory will be sure and not too costly; you may come to the moment when you will have to fight with all the odds against you and only a precarious chance of survival. There may even be a worse case. You may have to fight when there is no hope of victory, because it is better to perish than live as slaves. - Winston Churchill, The Gathering Storm

6th May 2012, 09:13 AM	#9099
Cylinder Illuminator Join Date: Jun 2005 Location: Arkansas Posts: 3,871	Originally Posted by Dan O. Where is this meme comming from and why is it being accepted without evidence? http://www.avvo.com/legal-guides/ugc...g-self-defense What the author fails to mention is the immediacy challenge. https://www.usconcealedcarry.com/ccm...warning-shots/ This speaks directly to the immediacy challenge. If you want more cites I will be happy to provide them later.
	__________________ If you will not fight for the right when you can easily win without bloodshed ; if you will not fight when your victory will be sure and not too costly; you may come to the moment when you will have to fight with all the odds against you and only a precarious chance of survival. There may even be a worse case. You may have to fight when there is no hope of victory, because it is better to perish than live as slaves. - Winston Churchill, The Gathering Storm

6th May 2012, 09:19 AM	#9100
kedo1981 Master Poster Join Date: Aug 2001 Location: ohio Posts: 2,083	Again, those who are actually trained in the use of firearms are trained to only fire with intent of deadly force. Those who live in a Hawaii five-o wing him Dan o fantasy should perhaps take the opportunity to read up on it.
	__________________ "Prove all things, hold fast that which is good" (I Thessalonians 5:21) I readily admit I don’t know enough to say for sure that there is no God. But I do know enough so say that anyone who claims to know the mind and will of a being such as God is a liar. I have no problem with Jesus, but his fan club sucks!

6th May 2012, 09:47 AM	#9101
Dan O. Philosopher Join Date: Feb 2007 Posts: 8,766	Originally Posted by Cylinder Because the warning shot itself can be used as evidence that there was no justification (i.e. the threat was not immediate.) Where in the law does it say "immediate"?
Dan O. Philosopher Join Date: Feb 2007 Posts: 8,766	__________________ Permanent solution to national fiscal problems: Collect UNDIEs from dead rich people. (link)

6th May 2012, 10:30 AM	#9102
Cylinder Illuminator Join Date: Jun 2005 Location: Arkansas Posts: 3,871	Originally Posted by Dan O. Where in the law does it say "immediate"? Arizona 13-418 "imminent peril" Florida 776.012 "imminent use of unlawful force" Illinois 720 5/7-1 "imminent death" Kentucky 503.080 "immediately neccessary" North Carolina 14.51.3 "imminent death"
	__________________ If you will not fight for the right when you can easily win without bloodshed ; if you will not fight when your victory will be sure and not too costly; you may come to the moment when you will have to fight with all the odds against you and only a precarious chance of survival. There may even be a worse case. You may have to fight when there is no hope of victory, because it is better to perish than live as slaves. - Winston Churchill, The Gathering Storm

6th May 2012, 10:42 AM	#9103
Natural Born Skeptic Graduate Poster Join Date: Oct 2007 Posts: 1,151	Originally Posted by Cylinder Because the warning shot itself can be used as evidence that there was no justification (i.e. the threat was not immediate.) So if I have a guy covered in blood with machete in one hand and a human head in the other hand, and he's about 20' from me and says "your next", and I fire a warning shot, that's proof there was no immediate threat of harm? OK, got it. Are you guys just stating the law here? Or are you seriously suggesting there are no situations in which a person firing a warning shot could ever be under a threat of immediate harm???
	Last edited by Natural Born Skeptic; 6th May 2012 at 10:44 AM.

6th May 2012, 10:43 AM	#9104
Newtons Bit Philosopher Join Date: Apr 2007 Posts: 6,904	Originally Posted by Dan O. Your friend's father is an idiot. I assume you are referring to the fact that basic gun safety tells you that "all guns are always loaded"?
Newtons Bit Philosopher Join Date: Apr 2007 Posts: 6,904	__________________ "Structural Engineering is the art of molding materials we do not wholly understand into shapes we cannot precisely analyze so as to understand forces we cannot really assess in such a way that the community at large has no reason to suspect the extent of our own ignorance." James E Amrhein My website.

6th May 2012, 10:52 AM	#9105
Natural Born Skeptic Graduate Poster Join Date: Oct 2007 Posts: 1,151	Originally Posted by Cylinder The facts surrounding the conviction of Marisaa Alexander are a bit troubling to me as well. A bit troubling? No kidding. Reading this makes me want to throw up. Here's a women who's already on one occasion been beaten to within an inch or her life, her husband has just tried to strangle her and told her he's going to kill her, and she fires a warning shot and is going to go to jail for 20 years? And guess who is prosecuting this insanity and wants to send her to jail for 20 years? Why good old Ms. Cory! Unless this article is seriously twisting the facts, this women should be paying a fine and doing a little community service. http://www.cnn.com/2012/04/24/justic...law/index.html
	Last edited by Natural Born Skeptic; 6th May 2012 at 11:04 AM.

6th May 2012, 10:58 AM	#9106
Dan O. Philosopher Join Date: Feb 2007 Posts: 8,766	Originally Posted by Cylinder Florida 776.012 "imminent use of unlawful force" Kentucky 503.080 "immediately neccessary" Do you notice a difference between those words?
Dan O. Philosopher Join Date: Feb 2007 Posts: 8,766	__________________ Permanent solution to national fiscal problems: Collect UNDIEs from dead rich people. (link)

6th May 2012, 11:05 AM	#9107
Bikewer Philosopher Join Date: Sep 2003 Location: St. Louis, Mo. Posts: 9,536	Police agencies have universally prohibited the use of "warning shots". This primarily because of the danger to bystanders. Also, (I was around when such were allowed) they were surprisingly ineffective. Suspects fleeing from the police (yes, we could shoot at them too, back in the day) would generally just flee faster, and drug-addled or intoxicated individuals often did not even register that a shot had been fired. On the other hand, I am not familiar with most states placing such strictures on civilians. I have never heard of anyone being prosecuted for firing a warning shot, though should someone else be harmed or killed the shooter would certainly be held liable.

6th May 2012, 11:17 AM	#9108
Dan O. Philosopher Join Date: Feb 2007 Posts: 8,766	Originally Posted by Newtons Bit I assume you are referring to the fact that basic gun safety tells you that "all guns are always loaded"? Exactly. That's what my father taught me.
Dan O. Philosopher Join Date: Feb 2007 Posts: 8,766	__________________ Permanent solution to national fiscal problems: Collect UNDIEs from dead rich people. (link)

6th May 2012, 11:51 AM	#9109
Dan O. Philosopher Join Date: Feb 2007 Posts: 8,766	Originally Posted by Bikewer On the other hand, I am not familiar with most states placing such strictures on civilians. I have never heard of anyone being prosecuted for firing a warning shot, though should someone else be harmed or killed the shooter would certainly be held liable. As recent as 2002, the Missouri state supreme court commented in a case about the lack of a warning shot being fired. But there have been more recent prosecutions in several states where a warning shot was successfully used to stop a crime in progress. I found the one exception where the shop owner was not prosecuted and there the news article was questioning why not. Is there some ajenda being pushed to force gun owners to rack up more kills.
Dan O. Philosopher Join Date: Feb 2007 Posts: 8,766	__________________ Permanent solution to national fiscal problems: Collect UNDIEs from dead rich people. (link)

6th May 2012, 12:01 PM	#9110
crimresearch Alumbrado Join Date: Jan 2004 Posts: 10,618	Originally Posted by Cylinder Arizona 13-418 "imminent peril" Florida 776.012 "imminent use of unlawful force" Illinois 720 5/7-1 "imminent death" Kentucky 503.080 "immediately neccessary" North Carolina 14.51.3 "imminent death" And for all 50 states, in Garner, the US Supreme Court cites 'immediate' and imminent' danger as part of the standard for reasonable use of deadly force. http://supreme.justia.com/cases/fede...71/1/case.html Quote: ...a department must restrict the use of deadly force to situations where "the officer reasonably believes that the action is in defense of human life . . . or in defense of any person in immediate danger of serious physical injury."... ...Where the suspect poses no immediate threat to the officer and no threat to others, the harm resulting from failing to apprehend him does not justify the use of deadly force to do so.
crimresearch Alumbrado Join Date: Jan 2004 Posts: 10,618

6th May 2012, 12:34 PM	#9111
Cylinder Illuminator Join Date: Jun 2005 Location: Arkansas Posts: 3,871	Originally Posted by Natural Born Skeptic So if I have a guy covered in blood with machete in one hand and a human head in the other hand, and he's about 20' from me and says "your next", and I fire a warning shot, that's proof there was no immediate threat of harm? OK, got it. OK...you got me.... Take away the severed head and blood. You fire the warning shot. I advance and you fire the kill shot. Who initiated the use of force and how can a prosecutor make that look?
	__________________ If you will not fight for the right when you can easily win without bloodshed ; if you will not fight when your victory will be sure and not too costly; you may come to the moment when you will have to fight with all the odds against you and only a precarious chance of survival. There may even be a worse case. You may have to fight when there is no hope of victory, because it is better to perish than live as slaves. - Winston Churchill, The Gathering Storm

6th May 2012, 01:49 PM	#9112
GWCarver Muse Join Date: Apr 2012 Posts: 593	Originally Posted by OnlyTellsTruths Good posts. Also if Z lost that hearing he would, AFAIK, be open to a Civil Trial after the Criminal Trial, no matter the outcome of the Criminal Trial. That is just one of the reasons I doubt Z's lawyers will ask for the immunity hearing. Another of which is that Z would have to take the stand at such a hearing. First, let me say I have heard O'Mara describe SYG as "tricky" and he has had at least one SYG case, but it was settled with a plea. So, he is familiar with Florida's SYG law. However, at the time he made that statement he was new to the case. ( It is worth noting he was at much the same knowledge level of the prosecution's case as he is today, because then, just as now, he had not received discovery. That could explain his reluctance in interviews to embrace SYG or self-defense immunity. He doesn't know what the state has on his client.) I can't disagree with your reasoning here, but it is Zimmerman's call if he wants to testify at the pretrial hearing, and he is the same person who wanted to talk to Corey directly. He clearly thinks he is innocent. IMO, O'Mara will really have to dig his heels in to keep Zimmerman from testifying in order to defend himself at the pretrial hearing. Of course, anything I say about this could look silly once discovery is made public. I realize you weren't stating Zimmermnan's civil liability, if he is found not guilty after losing a self-defense hearing, as a fact, but I really would like to find out for certain if that is true. (I've looked, no luck yet) It would mean, effectively, that if the judge and jury disagree on his claim of self-defense, it makes him liable to civil suits even if the jury finds him not guilty of a homicide for which he has already admitted responsibility. I don't doubt that it could be true, I just think it is something the Florida lawmakers would have wanted to avoid. Because Zimmerman is not denying shooting and killing TM, a not-guilty verdict would have to mean the jury thought he acted in self-defense. In this hypothetical, the case wouldn't have reached the jury unless the judge thought a preponderance of the evidence showed it wasn't self-defense or SYG. But, they do call it an "immunity" hearing, so that could be the reason - the one chance for immunity.
GWCarver Muse Join Date: Apr 2012 Posts: 593

6th May 2012, 02:07 PM	#9113
Rare Truth Graduate Poster Join Date: Oct 2010 Location: The road less travelled Posts: 1,291	Originally Posted by GWCarver First, let me say I have heard O'Mara describe SYG as "tricky" and he has had at least one SYG case, but it was settled with a plea. So, he is familiar with Florida's SYG law. However, at the time he made that statement he was new to the case. ( It is worth noting he was at much the same knowledge level of the prosecution's case as he is today, because then, just as now, he had not received discovery. That could explain his reluctance in interviews to embrace SYG or self-defense immunity. He doesn't know what the state has on his client.) I can't disagree with your reasoning here, but it is Zimmerman's call if he wants to testify at the pretrial hearing, and he is the same person who wanted to talk to Corey directly. He clearly thinks he is innocent. IMO, O'Mara will really have to dig his heels in to keep Zimmerman from testifying in order to defend himself at the pretrial hearing. Of course, anything I say about this could look silly once discovery is made public. .... In most cases, the defendant has to testify in pre-trial SYG defenses. That's because only the defendant can state why he was in fear for his life in an immunity hearing.

6th May 2012, 02:08 PM	#9114
Rare Truth Graduate Poster Join Date: Oct 2010 Location: The road less travelled Posts: 1,291	Here's an article that discusses it: George Zimmerman Expected To Take The Stand In Trayvon Martin Murder Case Quote: (MSNBC)- If George Zimmerman, the killer of Trayvon Martin, wants to claim self-defense under Florida's "Stand Your Ground" law, he most certainly will have to testify, criminal defense attorneys in Florida told msnbc.com. It is rare in criminal cases for defendants to be called to testify because they have a right against self-incrimination and it opens them up to sharp questions from prosecutors. But Zimmerman, charged with second-degree murder in the fatal shooting of Martin during a scuffle in a gated Sanford, Fla., community on Feb. 26, will need to explain why he thought his life was in danger when he shot the unarmed black teenager, attorneys not involved with the case say. Quote: "There is no way around it," Derek Byrd, incoming president of the Florida Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers, told msnbc.com. "I personally believe he would have to testify. It's not like a case where there were three other witnesses. Who else is going to say he was fearing for his safety when he shot Trayvon Martin? "http://www.kcentv.com/story/17409933...-observers-say

6th May 2012, 02:36 PM	#9115
GWCarver Muse Join Date: Apr 2012 Posts: 593	Originally Posted by Rare Truth In most cases, the defendant has to testify in pre-trial SYG defenses. That's because only the defendant can state why he was in fear for his life in an immunity hearing. I agree, but Zimmerman will have a pretrial hearing which doesn't have to be SYG or self-defense, unless it is waived.
GWCarver Muse Join Date: Apr 2012 Posts: 593