or Connect
Styleforum › Forums › General › Current Events, Power and Money › killing Trayvon
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

killing Trayvon - Page 110

post #1636 of 6250
I think they are intrinsically neither good nor bad.

For instance, you have a house with great views. The great views have your neighbor's house between you and them, but it's one story, so you have your great views. The neighbor decides to build another two stories...there goes your views and your property value drops.

Mr. Redneck moves in across the way or down the street. He decides he likes to have five rusty pick up trucks up on blocks in his front yard at all times. Looks like shit and there goes your property value.

The family with five kids down the street decides to sink a basketball hoop into the pavement at the end of their driveway and you have to constantly stop or run over kids when you're entering or existing your house by car. Additionally, you can't open your front door and get piece and quiet due to the constant "bounce, bounce" of the ball and the yelling of the kids. You put your house up for sale, your agent holds an open house, and reports all visitors complained about kids blocking the way.

A good HOA stops that.

No doubt HOAs can be bad and the board can have bad people on it. Just saying it's a value neutral tool.
post #1637 of 6250
CNN has the four page affidavit for PC up. Two things:

It says Z said "fucking punks" so I guess there goes all that talk over a racial slur

It uses as part of its PC reasoning that M's mother identified M as the person screaming. Is that a solid thing to reference in this document? Just wondering.

I want to say you actual attorneys have been most enlightening to us civilians.
post #1638 of 6250
Quote:
Originally Posted by Piobaire View Post

CNN has the four page affidavit for PC up. Two things:
It says Z said "fucking punks" so I guess there goes all that talk over a racial slur
It uses as part of its PC reasoning that M's mother identified M as the person screaming. Is that a solid thing to reference in this document? Just wondering.
I want to say you actual attorneys have been most enlightening to us civilians.

It holds up for PC reasoning. In trial, possibly not, provided the prosecution can enter evidence to the contrary.
post #1639 of 6250
Read the affidavit. Doesn't feel like murder 2. Still feels more like manslaughter based on some kind of negligence theory (what I would call negligent homicide under the model penal code, but what is probably one of the various manslaughter charges in Florida).

Theory I could see is basically is that Zimmerman's following Trayvon, ignoring the police dispatcher and confronting him is negligent behavior that got Trayvon killed.

Not sure how the self defense statute would fit in - there doesn't appear to be anything about self defense in the affidavit, but I don't think there needs to be (somebody more knowledgable of Florida law can comment on that).

Affidavit is enough for probable cause, though. Not enough for any of the higher standards, including reasonable doubt.
post #1640 of 6250
Quote:
Originally Posted by NoVaguy View Post

Read the affidavit. Doesn't feel like murder 2. Still feels more like manslaughter based on some kind of negligence theory (what I would call negligent homicide under the model penal code, but what is probably one of the various manslaughter charges in Florida).

Theory I could see is basically is that Zimmerman's following Trayvon, ignoring the police dispatcher and confronting him is negligent behavior that got Trayvon killed.

Not sure how the self defense statute would fit in - there doesn't appear to be anything about self defense in the affidavit, but I don't think there needs to be (somebody more knowledgable of Florida law can comment on that).

Affidavit is enough for probable cause, though. Not enough for any of the higher standards, including reasonable doubt.

Generally (and I'm not a FL lawyer), there is never a need to negate an affirmative defense in a charging instrument, so I am not surprised that there is no mention of the self defense statute. The overall brevity of the affidavit is almost certainly intended to limit the scope of cross-examination of law enforcement witnesses at both the pretrial hearing on self-defense and the eventual trial. I'm not saying there is a ton of evidence that is outside the scope of that affidavit, but there is no need at this stage for the prosecution to present more than the bare minimum to establish PC.
post #1641 of 6250
To the lawyers.

If there was no racial slur or other indications of a hate crime what jurisdiction if any would the Feds have in a case like this?
post #1642 of 6250
Quote:
Originally Posted by rnoldh View Post

To the lawyers.
If there was no racial slur or other indications of a hate crime what jurisdiction if any would the Feds have in a case like this?

If there's no evidence of a hate crime etc, then the odds of the federal government getting jurisdiction for the hate crime charge would go down.

For what it is worth, the U.S. and Florida are separate sovereigns, and the federal government wouldn't be bound by Florida interpretation of the utterance.

I just reread the affidavit, and I notice it did use the phrase "he was profiled by George Zimmerman". So the hate crime charge is still there, lurking in the background

Edit: To make it clear, the Federal government getting jurisdiction for the hate crime or whatever it is actually called doesn't mean that Florida loses jurisdiction for their murder charge.
post #1643 of 6250
Quote:
Originally Posted by retronotmetro View Post

Generally (and I'm not a FL lawyer), there is never a need to negate an affirmative defense in a charging instrument, so I am not surprised that there is no mention of the self defense statute. The overall brevity of the affidavit is almost certainly intended to limit the scope of cross-examination of law enforcement witnesses at both the pretrial hearing on self-defense and the eventual trial. I'm not saying there is a ton of evidence that is outside the scope of that affidavit, but there is no need at this stage for the prosecution to present more than the bare minimum to establish PC.

Yeah, I agree. Plus, keeping the charging document short makes it harder for the defense, I imagine.
post #1644 of 6250
Quote:
Originally Posted by retronotmetro View Post

Generally (and I'm not a FL lawyer), there is never a need to negate an affirmative defense in a charging instrument, so I am not surprised that there is no mention of the self defense statute.

Stand Your Ground is an immunity rule, though, and not an affirmative defense. I would have guessed something like that would need to be addressed.
post #1645 of 6250
Quote:
Originally Posted by NoVaguy View Post

If there's no evidence of a hate crime etc, then the odds of the federal government getting jurisdiction for the hate crime charge would go down.
For what it is worth, the U.S. and Florida are separate sovereigns, and the federal government wouldn't be bound by Florida interpretation of the utterance.
I just reread the affidavit, and I notice it did use the phrase "he was profiled by George Zimmerman". So the hate crime charge is still there, lurking in the background
Edit: To make it clear, the Federal government getting jurisdiction for the hate crime or whatever it is actually called doesn't mean that Florida loses jurisdiction for their murder charge.

I am no lawyer.

But it appears to me that Fl. obviously is taking first bite at the apple by trying Z in Fl. and that train has left the station.

In the unlikely circumstance that Z is found not guilty ( like the LA cops that beat Rodney King were found not guilty in Cal. state court in the 1990s ) does it seem to you lawyers that the Feds would then come up with some charge ( as they did with the RK cops ) and try Z for a Federal crime.

My layman's opinion is that double jeopardy was thrown out the window for the PC Gods in the RK case and that is what would happen here.

Any lawyer opinion.
post #1646 of 6250
Quote:
Originally Posted by rnoldh View Post

My layman's opinion is that double jeopardy was thrown out the window in the US v Lanza case and that is what would happen here.

Any lawyer opinion.

[IANAL] FTFY [/IANAL]
post #1647 of 6250
I might be wrong here, but I think the Rodney King thing was only possible because it was the police who were accused.
post #1648 of 6250
Quote:
Originally Posted by munchausen View Post

I might be wrong here, but I think the Rodney King thing was only possible because it was the police who were accused.

Remember, I'm not a lawyer but wasn't it a use of the "dual sovereignty doctrine" and not just a special application of the law to police?

http://digitalcommons.law.yale.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1965&context=fss_papers
post #1649 of 6250
Quote:
Originally Posted by rnoldh View Post

I am no lawyer.
But it appears to me that Fl. obviously is taking first bite at the apple by trying Z in Fl. and that train has left the station.
In the unlikely circumstance that Z is found not guilty ( like the LA cops that beat Rodney King were found not guilty in Cal. state court in the 1990s ) does it seem to you lawyers that the Feds would then come up with some charge ( as they did with the RK cops ) and try Z for a Federal crime.
My layman's opinion is that double jeopardy was thrown out the window for the PC Gods in the RK case and that is what would happen here.
Any lawyer opinion.

It's been a while since I looked at this, but I think the basic thrust is that it's not really double jeopardy because these are separate crimes enforced by separate sovereigns. The double jeapordy ban applies to the sovereign - and Florida's sovereign actions don't really bar the United States sovereign actions, such as charging for crimes.
post #1650 of 6250
Well they could theoretically bring hate crime charges, but I don't really think they have evidence for that.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Current Events, Power and Money
Styleforum › Forums › General › Current Events, Power and Money › killing Trayvon