Discussion Topic |
|
This thread has been locked |
tradmanclimbs
Ice climber
Pomfert VT
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Apr 3, 2012 - 10:21pm PT
|
FL prosecuters and police have voiced conciderable concern that their law makes it too easy to get away with murder and the courts seem to have proven their point quite convinceingly.
|
|
Tobia
Social climber
GA
|
|
If you have ever spent time in Louisiana you might have noticed a few of these stickers on the bumpers or windows of pickup trucks:
BITD the stickers just had the RCA letters and mimicked the old RCA electronics logo; some things change.
|
|
zBrown
Ice climber
Chula Vista, CA
|
|
@Tobia - well you're alot closer to Louisiana than most of us and from my limited experience coonasses (CoonAsses?) don't object to the term.
For the sake of this thread though a f*ckin' coon is not quite the same thing as a CoonAss.
Better call Santorum first, but wouldn't z-man have been justified in shooting this f*ckin coon who was raping his dog?
|
|
Tobia
Social climber
GA
|
|
That's the emblem, zbrown. I haven't been to Louisiana in a coon's age. The last time I was there was to take my aunt home, 14 months after Katrina.
Prior to that I lived there for several years, (uptown) in the mid to late 70's and again in the early 80's working offshore but keeping a home-base in New Orleans. Working offshore we would embark and disembark from anywhere between Houma, LA and Corpus Christi, TX. Lots and lots of proud RCA's.
Another point, living in what is regarded as the "deep south" now, I haven't heard the racist term "coon" in many years; if I hear a derogatory reference to a black person it is usually the n-word.
On the other hand, I don't put myself in a position where racism is an issue; sometimes you can't avoid it. I am not of that mentality.
Locality is not synonymous with attitude.
I was raised in the era of segregation, when Lester Maddox was passing out his ax handles, "separate but equal" schools, waiting rooms, lunch counter rules, etc. I have witnessed it up close and personally.
Unbeknown to some people just because you were born in such an environment does not mean these beliefs are embedded in your genes.
|
|
tradmanclimbs
Ice climber
Pomfert VT
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Apr 5, 2012 - 06:22am PT
|
Looks like the dog is likeing it....
|
|
Gary
climber
"My god - it's full of stars!"
|
|
blahbla: Gary, I don't need plenty, I need one from a Florida appellate court.
You'll have to do your own research, I'm really busy right now. The economy is picking up! And why do you think there has been an appeal? Would a person who's walked because of this law appeal the case?
I think this is why so many people are Republican voters. They prefer to be spoon fed their opinions, rather than forming their own based on their own analysis and research of what's going on. There are exceptions, of course, old school Republicans like JohnE. I don't agree with a lot of his conclusions, but you can see that he thinks for himself, and doesn't march in lock step with the Wall Street owned main stream media.
|
|
blahblah
Gym climber
Boulder
|
|
You'll have to do your own research, I'm really busy right now. The economy is picking up! And why do you think there has been an appeal? Would a person who's walked because of this law appeal the case?
I think this is why so many people are Republican voters. They prefer to be spoon fed their opinions, rather than forming their own based on their own analysis and research of what's going on. There are exceptions, of course, old school Republicans like JohnE. I don't agree with a lot of his conclusions, but you can see that he thinks for himself, and doesn't march in lock step with the Wall Street owned main stream media.
Gary--
I'm not a "Republican voter" in general, but I've formed an opinion that you and John E are full of it on this issue (whether the SYG would protect someone who has a subjective but unreasonable fear). My opinion is formed by reading the statute and keeping an open mind if anyone presents any evidence that the statute hasn't been interpreted according to what appears to be its "plain meaning."
How did you form your opinion?
Oh, and to answer your question about why there may be an appeal: a prosecutor should and likely would appeal a judge's determination that the SYG law protects people who claim self defense but have unreasonable fears. Prosecutors appeal judges' decisions all the time--what they cannot appeal is a jury's acquittal.
If you don't understand that appellate decisions are the basic way that laws are interpreted in the US, that's fine, but it shows you really don't know the first thing about how the legal system works. You may want to reconsider making snide remarks about the quality of other people's opinions.
Glad your business is picking up--I too have more lucrative ways of spending time than posting here, but hey you gotta have a non-climbing related hobby, right?
|
|
zBrown
Ice climber
Chula Vista, CA
|
|
To get back off the topic, I hadn't heard "ace boon coon" used in a long time, but it's still around. These guys don't frequent the ST so here it is:
I think this covers about all the bases, even gots a "goon-ah" @ :22
Has anyone checked z-man's iPod?
[Click to View YouTube Video]
|
|
zBrown
Ice climber
Chula Vista, CA
|
|
I would assume that Florida has some version of an "anti-stalking" law. It does.
California Penal Code Section 646.9 seems to require "repeatedly" and "maliciously"
Any person who willfully, maliciously, and repeatedly
follows or willfully and maliciously harasses another person and who
makes a credible threat with the intent to place that person in
reasonable fear for his or her safety, or the safety of his or her
immediate family is guilty of the crime of stalking
Florida seems to be modeled upon California (the first in 1990) and includes pretty much the same language.
Florida’s law states in part that “any person who willfully,
maliciously, and repeatedly follows or harasses another
person, and makes a credible threat with the intent to place
that person in reasonable fear of death or bodily injury,
commits the offense of aggravated stalking.”
Now we need to see if these two qualifiers have been upheld in the courts.
Also, haven't seen how and why the investigator's recommendation that z-man be arrested and charged with manslaughter was over-ridden.
I imagine he's under order not to discuss it publicly, will be interesting to see what the special prosecutor comes up with.
|
|
Gary
climber
"My god - it's full of stars!"
|
|
blahblah Gary--
I'm not a "Republican voter" in general, but I've formed an opinion that you and John E are full of it on this issue (whether the SYG would protect someone who has a subjective but unreasonable fear). My opinion is formed by reading the statute and keeping an open mind if anyone presents any evidence that the statute hasn't been interpreted according to what appears to be its "plain meaning."
How did you form your opinion?
By reading some Florida papers reporting on court cases. How did you form your opinion?
If I had access to the Southern Reporter I'd try to see if there were any appeals. But I don't want to pay for access to it online, and my weekends are too busy to allow time to head to the law library. If you have any references to support your side, I'd be happy to read them. Really.
|
|
michaeld
Sport climber
Sacramento
|
|
Zimmerman aggressively stalks Martin because he is a racist-profiling-wannabe cop.
Martin stands his ground when confronted, according to "Stand Your Ground" law.
Zimmerman is getting his butt kicked by someone 100lbs lighter than him.
Zimmerman shoots and murders Martin, then claims self defense...
Instigation / Stalking should DEFINITELY be a limiting factor in the "Stand Your Ground" law.
|
|
Crimpergirl
Sport climber
Boulder, Colorado!
|
|
zBrown - Officially stalking requires repeated events. So there can be no legal action on the basis of stalking. BTW, most states use language provided by the feds such as you posted.
Still, this is not to say that it appears Zimmerman stalked (in the colloquial sense of the word) Trayvon.
|
|
michaeld
Sport climber
Sacramento
|
|
Looks like Zimmerman may be going to Jail, now that the higher (grown) ups have gotten involved.
link?
|
|
blahblah
Gym climber
Boulder
|
|
Gary,
You no longer need to head to the law library to find reported cases, check out
http://scholar.google.com/schhp?hl=en
Choose "legal opinions and journals," select "advanced search," and select Florida courts.
(For what it's worth, I am a lawyer and do lots of legal research with Google--it's not yet a complete replacement for paid databases, but it's got an incredible amount of useful content.)
I spent just a few minutes and didn't really see any cases on point, but I may not have come across them.
As I think I mentioned, I've formed by view on this by reading the statute and noting the word "reasonable" in the relevant section.
I freely admit to being skeptical and cynical, but I'm more inclined to rely on the statute than on a cop's characterization of it, or even a DA's for that matter.
|
|
Crimpergirl
Sport climber
Boulder, Colorado!
|
|
I don't know Dr. F. As much as I don't like what I've heard about Zimmerman's behavior (and who knows if what is in the media is complete or correct), he may not. The court has to work with the laws it is given. Time will tell.
|
|
zBrown
Ice climber
Chula Vista, CA
|
|
Officially stalking requires repeated events
@crimpergirl - What's your authority for this? Other than what I quoted about the law in CA and FL?
otherwise:
Why was the invesitgator's recommendation to arrest and charge z-man not followed?
Why was there no (or minimal) attempt to collect evidence?
Why was the call for an ambulance canceled?
Why the delay in notifying the parents of Martin's death?
In how many cases where "stand your ground" was employed as a defense was the defendant not arrested immediately?
Is there a case where stalking was deemed to have occurred even without it having been habitual or repeated?
Why are z-man's two lawyers unwilling to say even whether or not he was treated by a doctor, urgent care, or hospital for his injuries?
Why is the fact that z-man was counseled in about Sept. 2011 about not confronting anyone ignored?
Does z-man have a job? Does he carry his weapon to work? Why was he carrying a weapon when he asserts he was just going to the local store?
Is z-man licensed to carry a weapon? Was the license up-to-date?
Why are there attempts to ignore z-man's prior behavior? There is a strong possibility that it will be allowed if this makes it to trial. Possibly Martin's too. From what's available so far Martin doesn't and z-man does have a pattern of volatile, agressive behavior. The argument is that it goes to the state of mind of each individual at the time of the incident.
Isn't it true that z-man and OJ attended Neighborhood Watch Killers Bootcamp together in 2006?
...
|
|
Gary
climber
"My god - it's full of stars!"
|
|
blahblah, thanks for that link. I will check it out. Once in a while I research boundary law, and that'll come in handy.
|
|
Crimpergirl
Sport climber
Boulder, Colorado!
|
|
@crimpergirl - What's your authority for this? Other than what I quoted about the law in CA and FL?
I'm a violent crime researcher and one of my areas of expertise is violence against women. A good part of that deals with stalking. I've been involved indirectly as these laws were being implemented so the elements of the crime are known to me (e.g., the repeated measure). As a researcher, having a clear definition - derived from the law - is necessary for measurement of the issue. I have published articles talking about estimates derived from this definition (what is good and bad about it). I lecture about it annually. I don't hold myself up to be the end-all be-all stalking expert, but I do know that stalking requires a "two or more times" aspect to it legally.
How people use the term in a day to day sense is likely different.
edit: Note the language in the definition you posted:
Any person who willfully, maliciously, and repeatedly
follows or willfully and maliciously harasses another person and who
makes a credible threat with the intent to place that person in
reasonable fear for his or her safety, or the safety of his or her
immediate family is guilty of the crime of stalking
The 'repeatedly' part (meaning 2 or more times) is where the problem is imo. Zimmerman did not legally "stalk" Trayvon to the extent he did not follow him on two or more occasions.
|
|
zBrown
Ice climber
Chula Vista, CA
|
|
@crimpergirl
Since you spend alot of time in this arena (most likely more than all of us on the thread combined), are you aware of any instance where stalking was deemed to have occurred based on one instance alone. For example, has anyone obtained a restraining order based on one occurrence of intimidating behavior?
I'm not questioning what you said, just what your comment was based upon. As I've looked into the California's statute, instituted in response to Ms. Saldana's stalking, it seems that other states derived their implementations from it. However, it seems that the language could have differed, and more importantly, judicial interpretation of the language, in other states.
I suppose it's time everybody has a look at what the Florida Law says, here an excerpt:
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).
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.
|
|
Crimpergirl
Sport climber
Boulder, Colorado!
|
|
Z - this gets a bit beyond my expertise. Maybe some attorneys can chime in. I know one could get a restraining order prior to the stalking laws for other reasons. I am uncertain how "intimidating behavior" is viewed legally. It'd be nice to hear others' thoughts on that.
Stalking in most places requires two + times plus other elements such as the victim feeling reasonable fear. If not, lots of mother-in-laws could be arrested for stalking. (hardy har har).
I wonder if legally there is something about 'hunting'. Based on the info we've heard (again, may be inaccurate and/or incomplete), it seems Zimmerman could be in trouble for a hunting type of behavior. Anyone?
Theresa Saldana's attack, and especially the murder of Rebecca Schaeffer by a stalker put stalking really on the map (and in the minds of policy makers). There is some great literature out there about the folks who were trying to get attention to stalking for some time before these event. It was after their attacks that it finally stuck. California led the way on this. The federal govt then offered language based on CA and many states adopted it. Please note that in the academic world, there are many who poo-poo the notion of stalking - view it as a socially constructed problem. Interested stuff.
Attorneys? Thoughts on Z's questions?
Also let me say that I am more familiar with the federal level of this stuff. Not so much the state level.
Hey, check this out: "Fourteen states may classify stalking as a felony upon first offense. Thirty-five states classify stalking
as a felony upon the second offense and/or when the crime involves aggravating factors" (from: http://www.ncvc.org/src/AGP.Net/Components/DocumentViewer/Download.aspxnz?DocumentID=41531);. As you noted earlier, FL is a 'repeated' states so someone has to do it repeatedly to technically stalk.
Wish I knew more Z. Interesting questions.
|
|
|
SuperTopo on the Web
|
Let us know!